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.

Define "RPG"

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
Draw a line.

On the left write “Character Abilities”, on the right write “Player Abilities”.

Title it “Amount game play (specifically combat) relies on abilities to determine outcome”.

Now draw a dot on the far left, label it “pure simulation, no player input” (sorry can’t think of a game that does this, though if I were trolling I would mention bioware combat ;) ). Draw a dot on the far right, label it “Quake”.

Draw a dot to the left of center, label it “Fallout”, draw a dot right of center, label it “Diablo II”.

Finally draw a circle that encompasses both the “Fallout” and the “Diablo II” dots, label this range “role playing game sweet spot” *.

Ponder how you have turned the black and white statement #2 referenced above into a complex range, or just turn your paper into the teacher for a gold star.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to place further dots on the line.

For justification of this exercise please read my first post.

* - Please note that the middle of the sweet spot is not necessarily better than an edge, only that a game must fall within this range to work well as a role playing game (at least in referance to point #2 above, which means that far more needs to be done to become a role playing game than just fall within this range)
 

Otaku_Hanzo

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
3,463
Location
The state of insanity.
Human Shield said:
Can a MMORPG ever be a RPG?

Imagine Fallout 2 as an MMORPG. :P

Player 1: Hey, man. I got some good drugs to sell.
Player 2: Oh, hell YEAH!

or

Player 1: Hey baby. Wanna star in my next movie?
Player 2: Sure. What's it called?
Player 1: Debbie Does The Wasteland.

or

Player 1: Yo bitch! Where's my money?!
Player 2: I'm sorry PimpDaddyG, but I just haven't had too much luck this week.
Player 1: Don't make me pop a clip, bitch!

Hooo doggie! I can see it now. :P
 

Diogo Ribeiro

Erudite
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
5,706
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
::reads Chadeo's post::

::removes 50% of applause off of Rosh's post and uses them on Chadeo's post, thus applauding both::

On a related note, i think a MMOG can be an RPG. It'd take some tinkering with, and a whole different attitude from the large majority of online players. After all, an online RPG can become an RPG but may not necesarilly be played as one. I already discussed what i considered wrong with online players here http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... ght=#19288 (pages 4 and 5).

As for the other part of the tinkering, i'm refering to how much a MMOG would have to be changed in order to become as strong as a single-player, offline CRPG, like Fallout or Planescape. It'd probably need the use of several GMs for certain events or parties of players, or multiple ways to handle quests, etc.
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
Chadeo said:
(Snip. I put that #2 for a reason, and covered what you somewhat paraphrased in there. I also put it quite clear that there is a difference between cognitive ability of the player and ability of the character, but perhaps I didn't reiterate it over a few paragraphs enough for you to grasp.)

Still I would never make the claim that a game that relied on either the player’s reflexes (like a real time FPS interface would cause) or abilities (like a highly tactical turn based system would) would stop being a role playing game.

Funny how it would "stop" being one, when it would hardly fit into one to begin with. Reflexes being allowed to compensate in a heavy stat system tend to break the design of the game system, and therefore are anathema to a heavy stat system. That "should" was in there, because the intent of a CRPG is to play a role, but not in a superficial manner, and components like a RT combat system tend to disrupt that. Whoo...role-playing a fighter, who ends up dead because you didn't press the right combo of buttons right or you got hung up on the interface enough. Sounds like shitty role immersion, doesn't it? That's BAD for a CRPG. Now do you see why I posted what I did?

Some deviation is allowable in all cases, as not all CRPGs are constructed the same, but they should at least fit into all the sub-genres of Adventure that that is resembling the traditional P&P roots, as I have mentioned before. As in why the genre was formed the way it was and how it started. Seriously, I doubt if anything is being read anymore. Milk, cheese, eggs, bacon, new sponge mop. Four score and seven years ago...

It is all a matter of the degree to which the characters abilities have an impact on the game within the given context. So the actual “things” that are influenced might differ between two interfaces, but as long as the “things” are heavily influenced by character statistics, it will meet the qualification as a role playing game.

Read again. Try to put it together a bit better.

While there are very few good examples of a pure real time system falling into this category, I still think it is entirely possible. After all, a game like Diablo two (which I agree, is a action dungeon crawl) will play TOTALLY differently based on how a player assigns their skill points. So while reflexes are very important, clearly so is character development. Thus I think that Diablo Two does in fact satisfy this aspect of a role playing game (even if it fails on others).

Dear god...why do I get a mental image of a retarded kid repeatedly trying to whack the square peg of Diablo into a round hole of CRPG with one of those plastic toy hammers when I read the above?

You're going on about superficial game mechanics of skill points, choosing which one does not really have any substance when pertaining to "character development". Wow, you get a different attack skill and might be stronger or weaker than others in various ways. The story and game still progress the same. Or are you going to bring up choosing between Corpse Explosion and Bone Spear as a viable CRPG "mechanic"? To forewarn, you'd be laughed at horribly here. Hell, folks, you should know by now I talk about core elements of gameplay than shallow bullshit mechanics.

You mgiht want to look up what real character development is sometime. That you fail to apply it correctly and in suitable depth as pertaining to the CRPG genre doesn't help much. In fact, it gives your posts the relative humor of a shit wagon crashing into the Pokémon factory.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
I think there's an important distinction to be made between an action CRPG and a "pure" CRPG. Before continuing, I think the difference between skills and abilities should be established to facilitate the discussion. Skills are possessed by the player and include things from skill at planifying an effective character to skill at clicking on monsters. Abilities, however, are the numerically expressed abilities possessed by the character in a game. So whereas Joe Gamer is skilled at making a good D&D character, Rognak the Warrior has abilities in combat with axes.

A pure CRPG should, as elaborated above by Rosh & Co., depend entirely on the character's abilities. The player only gives the character immediate objectives (attack the enemy, pick the lock, talk your way out of this situation, etc.) and it's up to the character and the abilities that character has developed to accomplish the objective--or not.

In an action CRPG--a genre I feel is just as valid as pure CRPGs--however, a character's effectiveness depends on both the player's skill (in spreadsheeting as much as quick clicking) and the character's abilities. The weighting of skill vs. ability depends on what kind of game the designers want to make: more action or more RPG? Diablo II is a good example of balancing this, despite Rosh's objections. In D2, the skills (erm, abilities in my little nomenclature exercise, but the game calls them skills) the player chooses for the character are critical. Despite Blizzard's (laughable) balancing attempts, many skills are quite worthless while some are terribly effective, especially when used together properly. Which introduces the skill component to Diablo II: you have to planify your characters carefully. Make a wrong choice and pump up the wrong skill, your character is pretty much borked, unless you're a really gifted player or have great items. Besides that, you have to play them carefully. Which brings me to the next skill aspect of D2: you just have to be good at it. Extreme proficiency in spreadsheeting may produce a character that's extremely easy to play, but many popular builds require a fair amount of skill and good reflexes to be used effectively. The best Diablo II players' fingers fly from F-key to F-key and over to the number keys to guzzle potions, all the while madly thrashing about with the mouse.

Anyhow, the way I see it, action CRPGs aren't bad, they're just different. Even though they violate Rosh's point #2 as a condition of their action nature, they can meet all the other points on Rosh's list. It's just that past action CRPG efforts haven't. The same applies to any genre, though I think the adventure game is particularly well suited to a CRPG-style world and plot. So, while games that follow all the rules established by Rosh should be produced, that doesn't mean there's no room for good action CRPGs.

Finally, Dungeon Siege is a miserable failiure. It's supposed to be an action CRPG, but it actually takes the pure CRPG skill/ability relation to a disturbing extreme where the player hardly has to play at all. It effectively combines the two worst flaws of the CRPG genres that usually can be compensated for by being strong in other respects (think PST or Arcanum, whose terrible combat were compensated for by the brilliant settings, plot, etc.) and tosses them together to make a movie, and a dull one at that: passive combat and a passive world and plot.
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
There is no such thing as "action CRPG", because by the literal definition of the genres, action-adventure fits it quite well. It's an adventure game with the focus on action. They are lacking what other aspects that define a CRPG, but fall into what defines an action-adventure game. Yes, Wasteland and Bard's Tale were both considered Adventure, there's nothing wrong with that.

What is it with people and trying to validate every little thing as a CRPG or even what clearly falls into another genre quite neatly?
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Your point is valid, and yeah, I would never call Diablo and it's ilk real RPGs.

Rather, I'm talking about a hypothetical genre that complies with the rest of the list, but that also has got a stronger focus on action in combat. I think an CRPG with the depth of Fallout or Arcanum using a Diablo II-style combat and character system (minus the straightjacketing classes, though) would be buckets of fun.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,475
Location
Behind you.
Well, as I pointed out in my reply in that other thread - you're still using your brain in both the actiony system as well as in the turn based tactical system. The main difference is that in the actiony one, you also toss in reflexives and skill with the mouse. This holds true for any type of actiony CRPG(or adventure to make Rosh happy).

How many times in an actiony CRPG have you died because your ranged, dexterity boy character run right in to a horde of critters because you misclicked? You were trying to shoot a bad guy, he moved or you missed with the cursor, so your character runs up in the to frey and gets croaked. Even if you're using the SHIFT key thing that most of them have to lessen this impact, a missed click means a missed shot, despite having that uber-dexterity or gun/bow skill.

Did your character build fail? Nope. Did your thinking fail? Nope, you wanted to shoot the appropriate creature. Did your character fumble? Nope. You merely screwed up with your own reflexes.

The same thing can happen in jump puzzles, spell casting, melee with combo attacks, and so forth.
 

Sharpei_Diem

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
223
Location
We're here
Something that hasn't been brought up yet, that should, is that a 'pure' role playing game would have the player only playing as the character: not as a party. In this one regard, many of the conventional CRPGs that we enjoy fail. How can someone fairly 'role-play' a group?
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
Sharpei_Diem said:
Something that hasn't been brought up yet, that should, is that a 'pure' role playing game would have the player only playing as the character: not as a party. In this one regard, many of the conventional CRPGs that we enjoy fail. How can someone fairly 'role-play' a group?

Uh...the same as they role-play a single entity. In P&P, sometimes a person would play two characters, perfectly fine. They have to role-play them as separate, but they were of the same team. You just treat them as you could as if a person were playing each one, and the DM would rule if one would know something the other would as well, and could call fault on a "mindreading" action.

The same goes with CRPGs, only they should be treated as a band and possibly individually for reputations. Some effect could be put upon the encounter because of some company the speaker is travelling with isn't liked by the recipient, but they are getting far more progress than if the loathed one were speaking.

Both as a group and as an individual would work well. Where they do fail is when they treat associated party members as meat sacks, a sword extension of the party and nothing more. We haven't truly seen a good party-based CRPG that truly explores the social aspects between multiple characters. PS:T was on the verge of this, and looked promising to inspire more like it.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Saint_Proverbius said:
Did your character build fail? Nope. Did your thinking fail? Nope, you wanted to shoot the appropriate creature. Did your character fumble? Nope. You merely screwed up with your own reflexes.

Well... yeah. That's how an action game (be it action CRPG or action/adventure) works. Your reflexes and skill are a determining factor in your success.

Sharpei_Diam said:
Something that hasn't been brought up yet, that should, is that a 'pure' role playing game would have the player only playing as the character: not as a party. In this one regard, many of the conventional CRPGs that we enjoy fail. How can someone fairly 'role-play' a group?

If you ask me, they can't. The best way to do it, in my opinion, is to have only one player character and optional NPC companions, or even a fully solo game (think the later stages of Fallout, where the pitiful, 50 HP, leather jacket wearing companions couldn't survive). This allows the player to focus on the character almost exclusively--what they do, how they respond to situations, who the character is. If you give the player control over an entire party, the game's focus shifts from the PC, making that character just one more troop in the player's control. Games like Icewidn Dale or Baldur's Gate are particularly bad in this respect.

It is true that PS:T did very well in creating believable party members who had their own personalities and complex natures. But I think that should be taken a step further to remove control of party members entirely. To me, a system like that in Arcanum is best. Your party members follow you around and help you out and you can give them equipment and general orders (ie., fight like a coward), but they decide what to do on their own.

Rosh says that in PnP games, players often can role-play two characters effectively. Perhaps, but that takes a really skilled player, and will the average CRPG player really bother to imagine that two of his generic PCs are in love? I think not. Far better to have NPCs with their own, pre-written personalities.
 

Otaku_Hanzo

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
3,463
Location
The state of insanity.
I have to agree with Spazmo here. As I've said in another thread, I love to be immersed in the story, and you just can't get the kind of immersion I love with a party of characters. I guess that's one reason alot of the newer RPGs just don't appeal to me. Even ToEE, which is a wonderful game no doubt, leaves me empty due to the fact I don't have a character to really relate to.

Fallout 2 is where it's at for me. You don't have to take NPCs with you. Not a one. You can just zip through the game on your own and become totally immersed in the whole thing. Sure, it makes things harder, but who doesn't love a challenge? ;)

Dungeon Siege used this basic formula as well. Too bad the game was pretty shallow otherwise. NWN is another example. But the story in that was so lame, it just didn't do anything for me. It felt so generic. Like my character was just some Joe Schmuck with no true purpose in life other than to do lame quests and kill shit.

I have tried multiple characters in PnP games and did not like it one bit. I love to fly solo and let the DM handle the NPCs. Relationships between characters feels so much more real that way.
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
Spazmo said:
It is true that PS:T did very well in creating believable party members who had their own personalities and complex natures. But I think that should be taken a step further to remove control of party members entirely. To me, a system like that in Arcanum is best. Your party members follow you around and help you out and you can give them equipment and general orders (ie., fight like a coward), but they decide what to do on their own.

Ah, a better example, thank you. And I wholeheartedly agree as well.

Rosh says that in PnP games, players often can role-play two characters effectively. Perhaps, but that takes a really skilled player, and will the average CRPG player really bother to imagine that two of his generic PCs are in love? I think not. Far better to have NPCs with their own, pre-written personalities.

I tend to forget that some of those I have known either in the past or present tend to be those who are greatly capable of doing as you've said above. Not all or many are like that.

It probably stems from all of us being able to DM with proficiency, where you play multiple characters, among a lot more, all at the same time. The hard part is keeping track of each personality and all the quirks.

This brings to light a funny thing. I'd have to say on average the number of various shopkeepers in CRPGs are more diverse and fleshed out than most in P&P RPGs. Most amateur DMs will use blank shopkeepers unless they are vital to the story in some way. That makes it a bit easy to notice who to go to for info or whatever, and most grow out of this. Others will switch it up and have a seemingly blank character give the vital info, etc. Some will go to the lengths of making a complex character for every NPC. Ugh.

What I prefer, and what CRPGs often do, is make a "personality chart", detailing what basic character aspects to form up the base of the character, which can easily be fleshed out into a full character if need be. But they already have the basics set forth so it would be easy to change up into a pivotal character.

It's not hard to apply the same to a player character. Although I think most of us here prefer the "free-form" CRPG, where you don't have a set character personality background except for a little info, it would be great if when making a party character you could also choose basic personality, to also help determine NPC reaction and possibly some special speech options.

So far, the closest to this has been done with choices in voice. That was old in most of the Infinity Engine games, with all three voices per gender that all sound like shit. At least Wizardry 8 gave a good variety, even if some are a bit cliché.
 

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
Ok let me see if I can get this straight.

The issue with any real time system in an rpg (perhaps I should say, in a game trying to be called an rpg) is the fact that it requires a higher degree of physical (and quicker mental) ability from the player of the game. This is bad because the player’s skills should have little impact on the success or failure of the character. The reason for this is because it feels lame to have a powerful warrior get killed by a rat because you are unable to use the mouse or press the right key fast enough.

Yet at the same time it is very clear that certain player skills are key to a role playing game (or perhaps I should say, games that in the past people have widely called, and accepted as, rpg’s). These skills are all mental based, and all of them are able to override the actual character’s stats. Just as you can bring up the example of the bad ass warrior getting his but kicked because you can’t mouse look your way out of a box, so too can I point out the extremely low intelligence barbarian performing absolute tactical brilliance on the field of battle. How about that smooth talking rouge whom you force to insult the prince thus resulting in all of the guards attacking you? Surely such a skilled diplomat would never make such a mistake.

As I said in my first post, and as it is my main point I guess I need to repeat it for those too busy coming up with interesting and colorful comments about wagons and Japanese cash cows to get it, clearly in a game there needs to be a balance between the abilities of the player and the abilities of the character. Go too far to one extreme and you get a movie, too far to the other and you get quake. A role playing game must ensure that the character statistics are important and have an effect, but it is equally obvious that the player must direct the abilities granted by these statistics.

Mental direction, or physical direction, they are but two aspects of control. Mental control will always give disproportionate advantages to a character that lacks metal capacity if the player can compensate, just as it will disproportionately hurt the mental character when played by a player who is unable to compensate. The exact opposite is the case for physical aspects of direction (poor fighter made good by amazing player reflexes, amazing fighter killed by poor player reflexes). In both cases a trade off must be made, yet the physical trade off is the only one that is ever highlighted.

My point in all of this is just to highlight the fact that for whatever reason, the turn based rpg proponents have no issue with incorrect failure (defined as an action caused by the player that the character would never have made) as long as it has its roots in a mental, not physical, ability deficit in the player. You basically give up a major form of immersion to allow for the removal of physical skill. Perhaps you have no issue with the top down, gods’ eye, world freezing, aspects of a typical turn based game, but for others it is a glaring “role breaking” situation.

After all if you are so hung up on character ability always trumping player ability, why then do you not have a major issue with the isometric point of view? You, as the player, are given way more information on which you can base your actions than your character. Seems this breaks the rule that character abilities should be the focus. Oh yes, I forget, such a view would utterly ruin a tactical turn based system of combat. So in order to allow the character’s abilities to have a major impact in one way, you must allow the players abilities to have an impact in another way. What is that phrase I am looking for? Oh yes, a trade off was made.

A computer game can never (at least not in my life time) replace your abilities as a player with the abilities of the character you are playing. For this reason, a designer of a role playing game must always make some kind of trade off. The key thing to analyze about this trade off is not if the emphasis is placed on physical or mental abilities, but if the abilities of the character have a major impact on the game. This is the defining feature of a role playing game. Not which kind of trade off was made, but exactly what that trade off accomplished.

Still this is only one single aspect of a role playing game. I am in complete agreement with rosh that there are other things that need to be “gotten right” in order to allow a game to fit into the mold of a role playing game. Just getting the player vrs character ability trade off right is not enough. It is however a good start.

Speaking of which, I forget the reason why the codex panned NWN, was it because of the real time combat? (hint for those who have problems with memory, or reading, it never once comes up in the review)

I guess both sides will not be happy until a game can come along with a true hybrid system (which will happen, mark my words) and also meet the other requirements for a role playing game. Until then perhaps we can all just agree that character statistics must play a vital role forming the character’s abilities in the world in order for the game to be a role playing game, and that this is only one aspect among many that make a game a role playing game.

On a final note, and just because I cannot resist, I leave you with the following comments on Diablo II.

Diablo II is not a role playing game (I wonder where I ever wrote that it was, guess people do not read any more, milk, cheese, eggs, bacon, and a new sponge mop). Lets see, how did I put it before? Ah yes…

Thus I think that Diablo Two does in fact satisfy [point # 2 from rosh’s post] of a role playing game (even if it fails on [other points]).

I agree that Diablo II does not have any non-combat character development. Even so, it is very easy to imagine that such a thing could be added to the basic character system of Diablo. Yes some reworking might have to be done to allow the player to advance both combat and non-combat aspects of their character, but my claim is that the real time combat could remain essentially identical.

So lets see here, the way you would make Diablo II into a role playing game would be to add non-combat abilities to the characters, and then change the world so the characters could actually interact with it in non-combat situations. Said in short hand, keep the Diablo II combat, add on the Arcanum (or torment, or fallout, or other favorite example) non-combat.

Perhaps that is hammering a square peg into a round hole, or perhaps that is taking a fun combat system and making it even better by adding on a fun non-combat system. Such an action seems to be about as childish as, oh I don’t know, taking the text-based speech interface (but with pre-made responses), adding in a point and click roam with world interaction, adding in adversaries to be defeated through a stat system while exploring, adding in a larger back story (than other genres) and character depth commonly found in many adventure games. Just because hybrid, integrated, and genre mixing, are over hyped “features”, and there exists countless bad implementation examples, does not mean that the practice is always doomed to failure.

I would have loved to see the text based adventure purist rants about how a point and click interface relied too much on player ability (no adventure game I play will ever need a stinking mouse!). Just goes to show you that when a trade off is made, someone will always cry foul.

P.S. I apologize for the lack of personal attacks in this post. If you miss them, I am sure someone can bring them up in a response or two to make you happy.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Chadeo said:

Why, yes, stupid people are bad at things. As for NWN, Saint may not have mentioned the combat in his review (which is odd, really) but that doesn't mean he liked it, nor does it mean that anyone else around here likes NWN's combat.

And incidentally...

<Spazmo> By the way, Saint, help me back up a point here: NWN's combat was...?
<Saint_Proverbius> PAssive?
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
Chadeo said:
Yet at the same time it is very clear that certain player skills are key to a role playing game (or perhaps I should say, games that in the past people have widely called, and accepted as, rpg’s). These skills are all mental based, and all of them are able to override the actual character’s stats. Just as you can bring up the example of the bad ass warrior getting his but kicked because you can’t mouse look your way out of a box, so too can I point out the extremely low intelligence barbarian performing absolute tactical brilliance on the field of battle.

The term you're looking for is "idiot savant". If short bus boy was a fighter, then I think that would be something that they would have picked up upon easily.

Comparing following the system written versus game mechanics is a little erronious to begin with.

How about that smooth talking rouge whom you force to insult the prince thus resulting in all of the guards attacking you? Surely such a skilled diplomat would never make such a mistake.

Only if he wanted to, for making such a blatant choice and obvious outcome. Could anyone come up with a more laughable example?

As I said in my first post, and as it is my main point I guess I need to repeat it for those too busy coming up with interesting and colorful comments about wagons and Japanese cash cows to get it, clearly in a game there needs to be a balance between the abilities of the player and the abilities of the character. Go too far to one extreme and you get a movie, too far to the other and you get quake. A role playing game must ensure that the character statistics are important and have an effect, but it is equally obvious that the player must direct the abilities granted by these statistics.

It's been amusing, but this is where I plant you into the ground. You've ceased to be relevent or remotely amusing anymore.

I'm not even going to go into the rest of the post, but the above just screms "clueless about game design and balance". The purpose of having little player control is to limit the scope of influence they have over the game, to give the emphasis upon playing the character and not /fighting/becoming ungodly with/ the interface at the same time.

So now instead of one part that could be overcompensated for, the combination of which are now even more problematic as it introduces the problems in both that could be compensated for by being both a skilled action gamer and accustomed to CRPG gameplay to know what speech option to pick or whatever (although, I do have to admire the skill options in ToEE for speech). You've just combined what player influence over some aspects along with the player's physical response as well.

That means it's doubly exploited. BAD for game design.

WOW, AREN'T YOU JUST THE GEENYOUS! See you later, Special Ed.

Have fun creaming your pants at Lionheart, as it sounds like your wet dream.
 

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
As for NWN, Saint may not have mentioned the combat in his review (which is odd, really) but that doesn't mean he liked it, nor does it mean that anyone else around here likes NWN's combat.

Right, I am not defending NWN’s combat, I brought that up to point out that the game failed as a role playing game more as a result of its interaction (well lack of interaction) with the world and story than it did for its passive combat. Which was done to back up the point that there are many important things to get right for a role playing game.

Real time combat, when done correctly, is the exact opposite of passive.

Don’t suppose you had any thoughts on the rest of my post?
 

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
Wow…..

Ok, trying to pick up the thread of a serious conversation in that post is difficult, but let me see if I can address some of that.

The term you're looking for is "idiot savant". If short bus boy was a fighter, then I think that would be something that they would have picked up upon easily.

Um, you just changed the statistics of the character to make up for the statistics of the player. I was not talking about an idiot savant, I was talking about a plan old idiot. This person would not be able to employee any strategic thinking what so ever, but might make up for it in pure strength or endurance or some other feature. You just dodged the issue. It is the same as if I said SP’s archer was “a highly skilled but very unlucky” archer, and that is why he missed. No, wrong, he missed because of the lack of a player ability. Just like my very low intelligence barbarian won the fight based solely on the ability of the player.

Comparing following the system written versus game mechanics is a little erronious[sic] to begin with.

I apologize, I do not understand this sentence, you will have to clarify it for me.

Only if he wanted to, for making such a blatant choice and obvious outcome. Could anyone come up with a more laughable example?

See, this is what cracks me up. Mental ability is put under the umbrella of “choice” while physical ability is not. Could not the highly skilled archer “choose” to miss with his arrows? Even if he knew it would result in instant death? Sure he could, in the exact same way that the diplomat could “choose” to insult the prince even though he knew it would result in instant death. The point of both cases is that it is NOT character skill or ability that “makes the choice” it is purely the player who is in control of that. It is trivial to come up with a situation where the player could make the incorrect dialog choice because they have not been paying attention to the story and thought they picked the correct option, when in fact it was an option that was blatantly incorrect for the character to pick. (heck this is why we have save and reload. Players make mistakes all of the time.)

The purpose of having little player control is to limit the scope of influence they have over the game, to give the emphasis upon playing the character and not /fighting/becoming ungodly with/ the interface at the same time.

God’s eye view isometric, along with infinite time to plan your moves, are as much an “ungodly” interface issue as someone with good reflexes. In both cases the player has advantages that the character does not. Actually there are any number of very common role playing game conventions that have this aspect to them. Knowing exactly how much health you have left, being able to calculate ranges and area of effects exactly, knowing the exact order (in a turn based system) that things will occur in, and so on. Many times the player has access to more information, or the interface allows the player to use his own skills to improve his success rate. This is by no means something exclusive to a real time system.


So now instead of one part that could be overcompensated for, the combination of which are now even more problematic as it introduces the problems in both that could be compensated for by being both a skilled action gamer and accustomed to CRPG gameplay to know what speech option to pick or whatever (although, I do have to admire the skill options in ToEE for speech). You've just combined what player influence over some aspects along with the player's physical response as well.

If I can follow what you are saying, I think you are pointing out that just changing combat to real time still allows many of the “mental advantages” that the turn based system allows, while also allowing for the “physical advantages”. Thus the game is terrible because both can be exploited. Does this then imply that you would be more than happy with a theoretical system that greatly limited the “mental advantages” that the player had if it allows for “physical advantages”? I doubt that, but it does seem to be what you are saying.

Have fun creaming your pants at Lionheart, as it sounds like your wet dream.

Statements like these make me wonder why I bother writing anything to you. Not because of the insult, but because of the clear lack of understanding of what I am writing. I give countless examples for why I would not enjoy lionheart, but none of them have anything at all to do with the combat. Like many other games lionheart fails for me because of its lack in various core rpg areas, not because of its combat system.

Just in case anyone even bothers to read this far, answer me this hypothetical situation.

I design a game which has a combat system as follows: When you get in a fight with someone or something, the game pauses, you then click on the opponent you wish to fight (in case there is more than one possible choice). The statistics of your character, the opponent, and relevant modifiers for your current positions are compared, with some random “dice rolls” tossed in for good measure (the random factor is equally applied to each combatant). The result is then determined and the winner is declared. If you are still alive you may then choose to pick the next opponent. (a good example of this is a space sim like MOO where you choose to let the AI resolve battles)

Seems like the proponent(s) of “emphasis upon playing the character” would, what’s that phrase, “have fun creaming their pants as it sounds like their wet dream.”.

No? Oh I see, you want to “play your character” in combat by using your own tactical abilities which have been modified by the character’s statistics. Hmm, that sure sounds like a trade off between giving the player some interaction options, and allowing the character statistics to matter.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,475
Location
Behind you.
Chadeo said:
Speaking of which, I forget the reason why the codex panned NWN, was it because of the real time combat? (hint for those who have problems with memory, or reading, it never once comes up in the review)

Actually, the reason I panned NWN's combat is because there's nothing at all to do in it. No thinking, no twitching, nothing. I'd much rather think and twitch than sit there watching.

However, like I said, you've still got to think in the actiony CRPGs, at least the good ones, but at the same time, they're removing another layer of what a character actually is from the equation.
 

Otaku_Hanzo

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
3,463
Location
The state of insanity.
Saint_Proverbius said:
Actually, the reason I panned NWN's combat is because there's nothing at all to do in it. No thinking, no twitching, nothing. I'd much rather think and twitch than sit there watching.

Sounds more like the combat in Dungeon Siege to me. :P
 

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
Right, I am not defending NWN’s combat, I brought that up to point out that the game failed as a role playing game more as a result of its interaction (well lack of interaction) with the world and story than it did for its passive combat. Which was done to back up the point that there are many important things to get right for a role playing game.
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
Chadeo said:
Um, you just changed the statistics of the character to make up for the statistics of the player.

Wolves, on a scale, are quite stupid. However, they can be capable of coming up with strategies that include driving the stragglers of a caribou herd off of a cliff to save them from having to chase.

Combat experience and ability is hardly relative to intelligent thinking. Trust me, I know, I've been around plenty of marines and football players, and they need to utilize strategy and interperet their orders given to their situation.

You just dodged the issue. It is the same as if I said SP’s archer was “a highly skilled but very unlucky” archer, and that is why he missed. No, wrong, he missed because of the lack of a player ability. Just like my very low intelligence barbarian won the fight based solely on the ability of the player.

I did not doge the issue. I think you need a shitload of classes in psychological development before you can understand this. Low intelligence does NOT mean they are a vegetable or completely incompetent. That explains why there are still people living in Arkansas. It is a different path than higher thinking. Besides, they aren't in command of a large army, they are deciding which enemy to slice apart. HUGE difference, there, so you should see that even the simplest dullard is often quite able to defend themselves and come up with some strategy. Mind you, this arises from the "strategy" of being able to walk, attack, use an item, or possibly cast a spell if they were wise enough or had some other provision in the ruleset that differed from book study. All of which are the general combat options in a CRPG, and I would have difficulty imaginging someone so mentally devoid that they could not figure out how to do such.

Yes, very duifficult for poor Tor to understand the concepts of walking and fighting. :roll:

Comparing following the system written versus game mechanics is a little erronious[sic] to begin with.

I apologize, I do not understand this sentence, you will have to clarify it for me.

Put it into context.

Only if he wanted to, for making such a blatant choice and obvious outcome. Could anyone come up with a more laughable example?

See, this is what cracks me up. Mental ability is put under the umbrella of “choice” while physical ability is not. Could not the highly skilled archer “choose” to miss with his arrows? Even if he knew it would result in instant death? Sure he could, in the exact same way that the diplomat could “choose” to insult the prince even though he knew it would result in instant death.

Now you're equating a missed attack because of bad player reflexes to be akin to blatantly choosing to insult someone. While you are right in the player's ability to define both combat and conversational decisions, one is an accident while the other one is deliberate. Big difference.

No wonder your "meet in the middle" "solution" is about as likely as TB and RT working together in a hybrid system, despite the fact that doesn't alleviate any of the problems within.

The point of both cases is that it is NOT character skill or ability that “makes the choice” it is purely the player who is in control of that.

No, it is the player playing the character in the system. The speech options are usually generated by a speech skill or some other manner to represent the ability of the character. WIzardry 8 has the Communication skill, in which topics are talked about, picked from a list, and depending upon the character's skill, the NPC may or may not opt to react or divulge the information.

I realize this doesn't quite fit with BioWare games, but they have been generally lacking in attention to detail in most regards to CRPGs.

It is trivial to come up with a situation where the player could make the incorrect dialog choice because they have not been paying attention to the story and thought they picked the correct option, when in fact it was an option that was blatantly incorrect for the character to pick. (heck this is why we have save and reload. Players make mistakes all of the time.)

What if the character just wants to piss off the prince, as it would clearly infer? Even the most influential characters are at an impasse with someone so resolute in their methods, sometimes unknown issues can crop up or perhaps the character could be trying to make the person irate. A good example, ironically for BioWare, would be the main character choosing to insult Minsc in order for him to break the bars of his cell. It just happened to be the right response to get him to move into action.

It is because of that speech is a little bit of an unknown, to represent the unknown factor of communication, the response of the person listening to it.

God’s eye view isometric, along with infinite time to plan your moves, are as much an “ungodly” interface issue as someone with good reflexes.

No, it isn't, as anyone who has worked on such a system could tell you. The character (and the player's influence) is still in the constraints of the combat system rather than being able to compensate for it. There's also ways to handle looking too far (LOS algorithms, compensating for the view's ability to see behind the player (the methods used for various surprise attacks), and much more.

Whereas with most RT systems, they tend to balance it out so that 60% have the reactions play it. That means that some could easily be far better, and some would be far worse. That problems is alleviated by using a system that everyone could use.

Knowing exactly how much health you have left,

Spoken like someone who has spent their entire life on the couch. What, you don't think you're aware of the extent of your own injuries?

being able to calculate ranges and area of effects exactly,

Estimating distance isn't much of a stretch, and usually their skill in judging distance is represented in their combat skill. With spells or other effects, they are there plotting it out in their mind as to where to place it and how far it affects.

And no, spacial thinking is not reserved for those of higher intelligence alone.

knowing the exact order (in a turn based system) that things will occur in, and so on.

What, you don't see someone gearing up and moving to attack you? Despite that many don't show what exact order that the combatants are going to be fighting in, it would be rather obvious in a fight whom was going to act when judging by how ready they are.

I do agree, however, that if there is a "deciding phase" for the enemy to decide what they are going to do, that the player be unaware of it. The player should be aware, however, of issues like when a spell is being cast from the start of the spell, or when a fighter is charging. While not a wholly faithful representation of combat (and RT often fails mostly in balancing and on other accounts), it does present it in a form that leaves little for the player to explot and also puts players to a level playing field. While there is always someone else that can twitch faster than you, you both still have to work within the constraints of the combat system. All that would be needed is a learning slope or a good explanation and most people would undoubtedly get enough of the basics to put the rest together. That explains how some of the dumbest people can play through Fallout as a combat character. Therefore it is easier to balance the combat as the audience is on a level playing field, leading to fewer complications in the development process.

Many times the player has access to more information, or the interface allows the player to use his own skills to improve his success rate. This is by no means something exclusive to a real time system.

Most of the "flaws" in a TB system are alleviated by LOS or other methods, quite easily. In Fallout, you didn't know generally how strong something was until you were a good judge (Awareness perk) to see how much life it has. I have always preferred the "Injured", "Weak", "Near Death" sort of scale to represent the enemy's life, to avoid the player from calculating precisely how much damage would be needed (to cast a spell), instead relying on what they and undoubtedly the character have both figured out - how much life is approximately left to the enemy and judge what spell to use there.

RT has major issues inherent to it no matter what incarnation.

If I can follow what you are saying, I think you are pointing out that just changing combat to real time still allows many of the “mental advantages” that the turn based system allows, while also allowing for the “physical advantages”. Thus the game is terrible because both can be exploited. Does this then imply that you would be more than happy with a theoretical system that greatly limited the “mental advantages” that the player had if it allows for “physical advantages”? I doubt that, but it does seem to be what you are saying.

That's what speech and other social skills/stats are for. They limit the amount/avilability of choices in order to better depict what reactions the character is capable of. With a TB combat system, that then neatly limits both the flaws with RT combat (in context with a CRPG) and the influence of the player's experience, forcing them to work along with the character system.

I can take by your ignorance of this that you haven't played Fallout, Arcanum, or any other game that really depicted how intelligence and charisma affected character interaction. Do you think you can expose the whole assassination plot by telling it all to the sheriff, as a stupid character? Not a chance.

That is why I tend to dislike the BioWare games, as social character skills/stats are hardly represented.

Your "solution" of putting it straight down the middle is rather laughable. Instead of having to deal with just one problem, you now have to deal with a doubly broken system. That complicates balancing and generally opens up more exploits than anything else. To achieve an ideal balance but also leave a game to the player. While your example below is indeed quite correct in playing a character by their stats (well, not completely), it doesn't seem to be a game that much at all. That's the big issue of development, keeping the game fun while also keeping the balance maintained. That's why Dungeon Siege isn't fun for a LOT of people, and it would technically be considered the epitome of a "role" if it had social skills and conducted all speech for you as well (and moved according to the character), except that it wouldn't really be a CRPG because of the lack of any "playing" to it.

I design a game which has a combat system as follows: When you get in a fight with someone or something, the game pauses, you then click on the opponent you wish to fight (in case there is more than one possible choice). The statistics of your character, the opponent, and relevant modifiers for your current positions are compared, with some random “dice rolls” tossed in for good measure (the random factor is equally applied to each combatant). The result is then determined and the winner is declared. If you are still alive you may then choose to pick the next opponent. (a good example of this is a space sim like MOO where you choose to let the AI resolve battles)

Seems like the proponent(s) of “emphasis upon playing the character” would, what’s that phrase, “have fun creaming their pants as it sounds like their wet dream.”.

No? Oh I see, you want to “play your character” in combat by using your own tactical abilities which have been modified by the character’s statistics. Hmm, that sure sounds like a trade off between giving the player some interaction options, and allowing the character statistics to matter.

Hyperbole at its finest. Yes, there are a certain amount of player interaction with the game, and your example is flawed in that you clicked to choose which enemy. The character should have done that themselves. ;)

The trick is to get the combination to the right point. RT still is more away from the ideal constraints. Choosing where to move and attack is not a laborious detail, nor is it one that could be easily exploited if the system is crafted correctly.

That is why game balancing is important, as is limiting the amount the player can influence to an acceptable level that does not result in exploits or a system where the player is getting really pissed off because the monsters crawl upon them faster than they can click, to dully watch as the character repetitively whacks upon it. RT takes away from your ability to fight often, in gauging precisely which blow goes where.

Now, think of the term "role-playing". Now, to get to the best meaning of CRPG, it would stand to reason that you'd get the role part firm and still be able to play it, staying as much as possible to the character role while still offering the ability to act as you think that character should. That is role-playing.

Then why are you excusing elements that do nothing but the contrary?
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,475
Location
Behind you.
There was a point I was going to make at a later date, but since Rosh has already stated it...

Tactical thinking is required in a CRPG, that's for sure. However, we're not talking about rocket science or even something on par with checkers or chess. There is no requirement for a long term plan for successful combat. Even ToEE with all the combat options it offers still really boils down to fighters up front, thumping, and ranged/casters in back, flinging.

Most tactics you do have that consequence in that turn as well, or the turn after. Tripping, for example, either lasts one turn or two, depending on the initiative roll of who is tripped. Some spells might have effects that last a few turns, such as blinding or stunning, but they don't really require any thinking beyond wanting those units out of commission for a while. There's not much in the way of a multi-facetted plan which requires multiple, unique steps as part of that plan.

In other words, thinking is required, but we're talking anything that advanced, really. Certainly nothing on par with the reflexes that a lot of the action CRPGs require like Gothic, Harbinger, and even Morrowind if you're using the full combat control.
 

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