RPG design should be about...

When designing a role playing game, what should its lead designers focus on, and what should the money mostly go towards?
Obviously you want some of all three categories, but what should get the most work behind it?

 

Fuck no.
Just give me systems and mechanics.

 

collecting cards with naked chicks

 

Immersion and roleplay are a function of systems and gameplay, not a separate consideration.

 

Protip: if you treat all of these as separate elements, your game will be shit.

 

Immersion and roleplay includes stuff like being able to equip a broom and be a janitor, or a lute and play music at an inn. Non-essential, not core mechanics. While systems and gameplay includes core mechanics, mostly combat.
For example, Daggerfall's many language skills would be filed under immersion&roleplay, and not under systems&gameplay, since they aren't a core system. They aren't what the game is about, they are flavour.

 

Highly depends on subgenre and budget.
JRPGs and stuff like Torment want character and story to sell, blobbers and stuff like Icewind Dale want gameplay and systems, simulations like AoD and Gothic want immersion first and foremost.
For sales you need accessibility and good art direction mostly, people on steam buy anything as long as it is pretty and easy to learn.

 

In a RP game, you should focus on two things: Deep mechanics that does not feel repetitive, and a lot of content that is locked behind character skills. The first one is the gameplay aspect and the second one is the RP aspect.

 

Using your logic, should a lockpicking system test PLAYER skill, or CHARACTER skill? Because you probably prefer one to the other. Ultimately, this dichotomy is about whos skill is checked against during skillchecks - the player skill to maneuver mechanics (like combat in, say, Dark Souls), or the character skills to pass the math (like most social checks in dialogues).
In my opinion, the player should build a character, and the character should pass the skill checks, including those in combat. If a character with 0 sword skill can beat a master swordsman with his rusty sword, because the player is that good at controlling the character, this is action game design and not RPG design. I prefer character skills be checked, not player skills.

 

In RPGs the only correct way to test player skills is through tactics and strategy. The latter includes the player skill of building powerful characters. Rest should *all* be character skill.

 

Well if you define it thus then there's no question. Nobody would want to play a game that had lots of awesome flavor moments like sweeping the floor, but terrible core gameplay mechanics.

Though I think to be supportive of what I consider roleplaying a mechanic needs to make a meaningful difference to the gameplay experience. Be it a combat or non-combat skill it has to matter in that one class/build of character plays fundamentally differently than another. Fluff and flavor are nice, but not what I would call the basis of roleplaying. That should always be based on skills/background etc and represent profound and significant differences in gameplay experience.

It's not that flavor aspects are bad, small details can make a big difference, but they aren't the fundamental basis of a roleplaying experience. I would say that comes, speaking very generally, from differences between how the game responds to choices made by the player during and after character creation and that is a function of the game's core systems. Depending on the game that could be mostly combat (for an action RPG) but that also speaks to quest design and dialogue systems as well. In order to feel like you are playing a role, rather than just moving though a series of scripted events, you have to be given agency over as much as is practically possible. Your character creation choices must matter, your in game decisions must matter. It is the game's core mechanics that make these things matter or not.

 

There are entire genres proving you wrong.

 

Brought to you by the autistic workaholics that are Germans.

 

Holy fuck, man, I haven't seen anything as hysterical since "the state or arkania" video.

 

I remember playing Fallout 1 demo with zero expectations and being blown away. Obviously in a short demo they couldn't show anything about plot, or character development, or underlaying systems, or the setting - but what was there was enough. Basic combat, animations, graphics style, interactive world elements - they matter a lot if you want to keep people interested. It was the same with Betrayal at Krondor.

In short - designing one location and 2-3 combat encounters until they work in playtesting is a hard work. Setting, world, lore, backstory is not hard, and can be invented over the weekend - just ask Michael Kirkbride.

 

RPG design should be about asking the player to make meaningful choices. Choose a build, choose a faction, choose a quest solution, choose a companion, choose life. In order for the choices to have meaning, they have to be interconnected. If your choice of build doesn't affect what quest solutions you choose, if your choice of faction doesn't affect what companions you can choose, then the RPG is probably bad.

 

“What should ideally be the driving force behind RPG design“?

Designers’ varied life experiences and interests outside and separate from gaming. Contrary to Interplay’s message of “by gamers, for gamers”, some of their best games were driven by people who look nothing like those today who make games - who grew up on Xbox mindless prattle, read grocery-store gossip rag-quality shit like Wheels of Time and love anime. The best games (and art imo) are made by those who had interests and experiences outside their field - who studied history, computer science or mathematics at university. Not culturally insular modern game “professionals” with “game design” degrees. That’s a recipe for lifeless Taylorist design and echo-chamber themes/mechanics/writing that give you some of the Codex’s favorites (Fallout New Vegas, PoE, Outer Worlds - obviously Skyrim and the like).

If you love games and want to make games for a living, make sure you have other interests in your life that you can draw upon. That will be far more valuable than the results of this poll.

 

Are you trying to make a good game or are you trying to make money?

 

Video games should focus on passion first and everything else will naturally follow

 

ROMANCE

CRAFTING

GIANT SPIDERS

GIANT SPIDERS CRAFTING SHIT AND HAVING SEX

THAT IS WHAT RPGS ARE

 

LOOT FEVER

SATURATED COLOR PALETTE

INCLUSION

TURN-BASED

ROGUE-LIKE

"CLASSIC"

"INSPIRED BY..."

"BROUGHT TO YOU BY..."

PROCEDURAL GENERATION

CO-OP

CINEMATIC

UPDATED FOR A MODERN AUDIENCE

 

JOHN ROMERO PRESENTS

 

Gamplay all the way.

When you're designing an RPG you should wonder what'll be in your game which will makes it as fun to play as a game with intricate dungeons, fireballs and mass confusion spells, there's nothing more ridiculous than rpgs meant to be ambitious for using unusual settings (typically medieval without fantasy) but whose mechanisms are simply dumbed-down versions or usual ones.

 

good graphics is the most important part of an RPG
if I can't see my character decked out in full bling then why even play

 

• doesn't hold you by hand
• has awesome story and characters
• has many secret areas
  
• gameplay is hard but great
• has satisfactory ending you talk about with your friends
  
• actually wants you to play more rather than shitposting on the forum