My point is that, as I understand it, CRPGs are defined by a specific kind of play that is somewhat unique to it. I use the word somewhat because, of course, it wasn't born in a vacuum. Older (I say older because I have no idea how people play those nowadays) tactical games both already had some kind of storytelling going on together with it. Stuff like jeepform and other storygames could share the definition I gave earlier. But my point here is that CRPGs have their specific difference from other computer games by trying to approximate what a P&P game session is in some degree. A CRPG isn't a real RPG, as I understand the term, because it can have no real storytelling, at least as it happens in a P&P game. A P&P game works as a conversation, with back and forth. While the game master (if there is such a thing) is usually the one telling the story, the players have to contribute quite often. That is why I say CRPGs are an approximation, whereas a real RPG is not trying to approximate anything as its ultimate objective.
I'd agree that cRPGs benefit from learning from PnP. As for whether cRGPs try to approximate PnP, I'd agree this was definitely the case in the beginning of the genre, but by now most devs seem to me to basically do their own thing, and the link to PnP has largely been lost. Mind you, I think that's probably a bad thing, in the net (Sawyerism and PoE come to mind.) As for whether cRPGs are, in essence, approximations of PnP RPGs, I'm not so sure about that. To me, it rather seems that cRPGs and RPGs have similar design approaches and goals, or to put it another way, seek to evoke a similar kind of experience in different media. As for what those goals, approaches, and experiences are, well, that comes down to the "definition of RPG" discussion. I think this definition rules both of them.
Indeed. Some people may think this is a worthless effort, but I think having a clear idea of what RPGs are is crucial in designing new games.
Yes, people here tend to exaggerate the problem involved in this, and also the extent to which "everything has been said" on it.
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly do you mean by "synthetic"? Do you omean how they came by historically, or do you mean something more or besides that?
Yes, I meant specifically in the historical sense. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
If we are just examining the historical context, this is great because there is probably much here that is interesting and maybe even eye opening. But I want to make it clear that by examining what an RPG is, I mean what exactly it attempts to do, whereas the history can show only how they attempted to do it throughout the years. Apologies if I am unclear.
At any rate, this is an interesting history. I don't think this so called "holy triad" is a good measure of what an RPG is, but it is certainly a nice piece of history. But, combat, for instance, isn't something that I would consider essential in an RPG. I think it is telling that even some early P&P systems, like Call of Cthulhu had games where combat would take a much lesser role and that revolved instead around investigations. In CRPGs, I think Zork is a good example of an early game that tried to approximate what a P&P game is like without focusing on combat. True, most people, including Infocom, don't call Zork a CRPG, but that doesn't mean it isn't one.
Of course, PnP RPGs driven by interactive storytelling are indeed very old. The tendency existed even before Storyteller came around, as you point out. That said, it remains the case that the genre was kickstarted by D&D, so then the question regarding a historical definition hinges upon whether we take RPGs, historically defined, as being determined by the sole founding product, or we also take into consideration the ways in which the genre evolved over the years. The problem here is that genres change. We have seen this in the case of cRPGs, the definition of RPGs - in the context of videogames - originally involved Wizardry/Gold Box style games, then changed and Fallout and PS:T became the paradigm, and eventually it was games like Mass Effect that came to be understood as definitive examples of RPGs. If history is so contingent then, what's the worth of historical definitions? In my view, it comes from the fact that we can learn lessons from it and see what is viable and what isn't. Things may envelop themselves in certain elements throughout their development that, while not essential to them as such, may still play a key role in making them what they are and work properly.
This is the reason I am so suspicious of the hack and slash revisionism of people like Sawyer. Notice how he had, throughout the development of the Pillars franchise, to learn for himself all over again things that had been known for ages. However, for such lessons to be learned the analytic definition is necessary because it allows us to distinguish those developments that change a thing so much that they cross a threshold that makes the thing something other than what it was. It allows us to protect the label from people who might want to say that, for example, Assassin's Creed is an RPG.
What this boils down to is that I agree that early story-oriented RPGs are part of the history - and thus historical definition - of RPGs, but so is The Triad, and this triad may not be the only measure of what an RPG, historically, is, but it certainly is one valid measure. Specifically, it is the measure of what a traditional - or Gygaxian - RPG is. And this is a model that not only founded the genre, but also has worked for decades, consistently producing and inspiring quality content and systems in different media. Thus it is as a good role-model as any, to say the least, to RPG designers and developers. In the case of cRPGs in particular, we also see that, as of now at least, it is the one that has best translated to the computer gaming medium.
Again, I am not exactly sure what you mean by analytic, although I think here we are getting to the heart of the matter I was trying to discuss. Still, if you think I might be misunderstanding something, please do correct me.
I mean something that is true
a priori, or by definition. Such as when we say that "all bachelors are unmarried". Thus, that "Roleplaying games are about roleplaying" seems to me to be an analytic judgement. What is then in question is what roleplaying means, or can mean.
Here is some more info on this, in case anyone is interested:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
But I ultimately disagree with your affirmation that ultimately the gameplay interactions should be drive by the character system. Looking at P&P gaming, we can see that frequently, the roleplaying and interactions sidestepped the character system completely. For instance, when you had a thief look for traps in a specific way ("I check if there is any kind of trip wire on the door very lightly and push the ground slightly to check for pressure plates") rather than by rolling your chance to find traps.
Well, systems-driven doesn't mean systems-saturated, there is definitely room for improvisation given my understanding of a game driven by the character system. I do think that a bare minimum of formalized rules are necessary for something to be a game at all, though.
I am not trying to say that a formal character system shouldn't exist, I think quite the contrary, but that is not to say that it must exist for there to be an RPG. It is entirely possible to have good games where the roleplaying system exist entirely in non formalized concepts. And, more pertinent, it is frequently the case that it exists both on the formalized character system and the informal imaginative of the players.
Sure, there is a lot of room for improvisation and creativity here, rules are meant to facilitate that, not stifle it. I think good rulesets excel at that. It also goes without saying that PnP tends to be better at this than videogames. That said, I do think that some sort of ruleset must govern the dynamics of roleplaying, as this is what gives meaning and flavor to the roles. I think you can roleplay without rules or systems, but then we are no longer talking about a roleplaying
game, at least in my view.
I think this is where we differ. See, I don't think most cRPGs, or even RPGs in general aren't abstract. I think they all aren't! You can't have an abstract, math puzzle game, and still call it an RPG. And if you do take RPG rules and simply fail to map them to a story, say all your characters are chess pieces and you play the combat as completely abstract, then you are not playing an RPG anymore. My point is not that I think story aspects of an RPG are more important than gameplay, or even that the right balance is to have them equally important (whatever that would mean), but rather that they both need to be present at the same time. You don't play a game for a while and then talk a bit of story, but rather, both should be happening at the same time. Every gameplay mechanic is also a storytelling mechanic, and every story aspect is also (or should also) be a gameplay aspect. Which is the basis of my critic. If you focus on gameplay while losing track of how this is interpreted as a concrete scene rather than a simple game state, you can end up harming the RPG aspect of the game.
Well, I think what you here refer to as abstraction and what we may call immersion are part of a spectrum, in the context of game design. cRPGs definitely involve abstraction, it is a matter of degree. Most cRPGs do not approach the level of abstraction of math puzzles, but they also don't approach the level of immersion of an actual simulation either. In my view, game systems can still engage the player without relying fully on immersion. This they can do through challenge and mechanical elegance. However, I'd agree that some degree of "immersive" design is a necessity, though this should be enmeshed, as you seem to suggest, in the rules and mechanics themselves (or at any rate that's how it'd have to be done in dungeon crawlers or combat romps.) A good example of this is how roles - even in combat games - usually represent archetypes such as Paladins, Druids, Ninjas, Barbarians, etc. which stimulates the imagination and gives the role a more relatable quality beyond a mere statistical bundle or aggregate. We can also see this in how combat mechanics represent some plausible scenario - as HP in D&D originally did.
For another example, consider hitpoints in AD&D. It is actually pretty hard to take hit points in account in a way that makes sense. But it is possible and on a P&P session, you can do so with some minor inconsistencies (like how ridiculously long it takes for a high level character to heal, either with low level spells or by time). In Underrail, the break between mechanics and what makes sense is rubbed on your face all the time.
Even though HP was indeed an abstraction in D&D, it was one that made sense, as Gygax put it in the original DMG:
It is not in the best interests of an adventure game . . . to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy. The reasons for this are manifold.
As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them. . . .
Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the"to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the lost handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. . . .
Because of the relatively long period of time represented by the round, dexterity (dexterity, agility, speed, quickness) is represented by a more favorable armor class rating rather than as a factor in which opponent strikes the first blow. . . . The system of AD&D combat maximizes the sense of hand-to-hand combat and the life-and-death character of melee without undue complication.
This sort of thing indeed adds much to a game.
My point about Underrail is not simulationism. I don't think you need to be strictly simulationist to be an RPG. But I do think you need to make your systems somewhat similar to what is going on. Underrail fails to do this at several points and ends up alienating the player from whatever narrative he might build upon its systems. It is not an everpresent problem. In fact, if you play a psyker where the cooldown mechanic is not something completely unfitting, it can be a pretty good RPG in this sense.
Well, I imagine it's a matter of how much abstraction you can tolerate. I think certain qualities - such as challenge - can compensate for immersion in some cases. Then again, I wasn't a huge fan of Underrail, the game had too many flaws, from my point of view, for me to single out this particular element as especially problematic.
Anyway, thanks for responding to my post. I don't think I really have anything useful to add to your other points.
Same to you.
