The Fundamental Aspect of an RPG is...

[Xi]

Currently, the most fundamental aspect is unquestionably character development. You're playing a game of character development, everything else is secondary. Too bad you didn't have a correct option for this.

 

[Forest Dweller]

#2

 

[Gnidrologist]

The most fundamental aspect of any rpg is kingcomrade.

 

[Yeesh]

in RPG a gameplay fully depends on stats - from basic combat to any interaction with a world. Not mentioning higher materias like tactics.

I hear this, and do not agree. It is an assertion which leads to the automatic disqualification of ARPGs from the CRPG genre. Leaving the ARPGs aside, I do not understand the logic behind the statement itself.

Why is it that you (presumably) have no trouble with the player's intelligence controlling every move, from gearing up to party tactics to conversation choices, but if the player's reflexes enter into the equation, you believe that the game just switched genres? Why is the simulation of any action mechanics sacrosanct, while the simulation of any mental mechanics, and any moral mechanics, can be cast aside without a thought? A character's DEX and Dodge skill must prevail over the player's, but the character's INT and Alignment only count when you want them to?

Do you not see that the honest and thorough application of the logic of your position to gameplay design should result in a "game" where you create the characters and just watch them go off and play without your input at all, making all their choices based on the alignment and mental facilities with which you've endowed them? What you demand from the action interactions is uncompromising simulation, but when it comes to intelligently moving, equipping, and fighting your characters, and when it comes to making choices that affect their world, you accept big, fat compromises in the name of playability.

There's no logical line that allows your intelligence to trump the character's sometimes, and your morality to trump the character's sometimes, but which doesn't allow your reflexes to be in control ever, never, ever, no way, un-unh.

 

[spectre]

Err, do you want universal rules to apply to anything? Fine then, but this isn't doable.

"when it comes to making choices that affect their world, you accept big, fat compromises in the name of playability."

Yes, we accept them, because playability is paramaount. Because it's a fucking game.

And it's bullshit that INT and alignment go down the drain. Well designed rpgs take these into account, and when you make certain choices earding them, the effects creep into the gameplay. Like Fallout - get low reputation, people shoot you on sight. Get low INT, you talk like a moron. Fucking deal with it. OTOH, get high INT, you get additional lines in conversation.

However, if you were referring to limiting role playing options, like a dumb barbarian shouldn't be able to use atactics in combat apart from chaaarge! This makes for an uniteresting game. (Because gameplay is fucking paramount).

To stretch this ad absurdum, this would mean party-based rpgs should be frowned upon. Because you can only be one person at a time.

Now, let's go over it one last time: The basic idea is as follows - character skill>player skill. If the character cannot do something, then the player cannot make him. I.e - the character is clumsy, then no matter your 1337 wasd skills, he's not going to dodge that sword swing unless lucky.

An is the character is a drooling moran, or is stuttering and has nervous twitches, he's not going to bluff his way past a guard.

This doesn't mean the character cannot kill a skilled swordsman, or get into a VIP only party, but the player should use his wit to devise a better plan than this. The trick is that the player HAS to play to the character's strenghts and weaknesses. Not to subvert them.

BUT.
This doesn't mean a true rpg has to be turn based. This of course allows the most control over what the character can and cannot do, but if we are to implement this in real time, character stats should be taken into account everywhere (mostly movement speed and agilityto limit twitch-based play or character unsuited for this)

To wrap it up:
Think about it like this - if an actor plays a moron, it doesn't mean he is a moron himself (hence he has an option to drop the character anytime he wants), but if he wants to stay in character, then he should always act the role, regardless of other options.
IF he doesn't a good director will pop up and say: dude, you're going out of character.
This is impossible in a crpg (unless we severely limit player options... which is a lot of work and is generally unfun), more possible in pen and paper.

Now, regarding this:
"It is an assertion which leads to the automatic disqualification of ARPGs from the CRPG genre."

And why the fuck not? Because it has the magical letters R,P and G stuffed there? A surprising amount of people who know their way around the rpg say that it isn't.
It is perfectly acceptable to say that Diablo isn't an rpg, but rather an action game with prominent rpg elements. Mind you, stats and levelling up are rpg elements that everybody recognizes, but they are elements that add up, not define the game (as a few "journalists" would like to have it).

 

[janjetina]

The Fundamental Aspect of an RPG is...

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you... and to hear the lamentation of their women!

 

[zenbitz]

Currently, the most fundamental aspect is unquestionably character development. You're playing a game of character development, everything else is secondary. Too bad you didn't have a correct option for this.

I totally disagree with this. Let's take a game, like, i dunno, Fallout 1. Let's say that you could encounter most everything, defeat the master, and finish the game, all with the exact same stats, skills you started with. Would it still be a RPG?

I think it would.

 

[Yeesh]

Currently, the most fundamental aspect is unquestionably character development. You're playing a game of character development, everything else is secondary. Too bad you didn't have a correct option for this.

I totally disagree with this. Let's take a game, like, i dunno, Fallout 1. Let's say that you could encounter most everything, defeat the master, and finish the game, all with the exact same stats, skills you started with. Would it still be a RPG?

I think it would.

I think it would not.

And assume, to make the choice even more stark, that you weren't able to customize your character at all, and everyone had to play with the same (unchanging) stats and skills. Surely that would be no RPG. But would you say customizing is more important than development?

 

[Joe Krow]

And assume, to make the choice even more stark, that you weren't able to customize your character at all, and everyone had to play with the same (unchanging) stats and skills. Surely that would be no RPG. But would you say customizing is more important than development?

It's equally obvious that if you took the dialogue out of Fallout and replaced it with no-choice cut scenes leading to the most combat heavy option it would still be an rpg.

 

[ChristofferC]

Only 2 is required.

 

[zenbitz]

I think an RPG has to have "something" - some decision to make - in between combats. At least the first "C" of "C&C", as distinct from pure tactical decisions.

I wouldn't say that character design (initial customization) is MORE important than development. Probably you would have to have at least one or the other. I do think the player has to have some input, not just a list of stock characters with no development.

I don't know if it was this thread or another, but I like the idea of a cRPG where the character actually gets LESS powerful as the game goes on... LIke some demi-god who slowly exchanges his power to achieve his goal.

 

[Yeesh]

First, let me point out that this is not a discussion about designing games, but about classifying them. Playability is fucking paramount, but not when it comes to deciding what is and what isn't a CRPG. Right?

Err, do you want universal rules to apply to anything? Fine then, but this isn't doable.

There's confusion right off the bat. It's those who would disqualify games from the RPG genre who are applying rules. I'm instead pointing out that this rule is arbitrary if not outright fake. Here it is:

in RPG a gameplay fully depends on stats - from basic combat to any interaction with a world.

character skill>player skill

Ok, sounds great. Now let's watch it in action:

the character is clumsy, then no matter your 1337 wasd skills, he's not going to dodge that sword swing unless lucky.

OK. So as applied to action elements, character skill>player skill. Rule is in effect.

However, if you were referring to limiting role playing options, like a dumb barbarian shouldn't be able to use atactics in combat apart from chaaarge! This makes for an uniteresting game. (Because gameplay is fucking paramount).

Hmm. So character skill>player skill, except when the kind of game you want to play doesn't lend itself to that, and then the "rule" is inverted completely.

The trick is that the player HAS to play to the character's strenghts and weaknesses. Not to subvert them.

...UNLESS we're talking about the character's mental strengths and weaknesses, or moral choices, right? Because those are different from the character's ability to dodge or something crucial like that.

So:

If player skill takes over for: tactics, for moving and equipping your guys, for alignment, for making any and all choices throughout the game, then you have still have a CRPG. Because "character skill>player skill" is just a rough guideline that we don't have to apply strictly; after all, gameplay is paramount, and let's face it, quite often the player needs to be able to use tactics, make choices, and go in directions that the character would not or could not. I mean, this is a CRPG.

If player skill takes over for anything involving WASD, you have just switched genres. Because character skill>player skill needs to be applied strictly, and if the player can use his abilities with WASD to do something that the character could not, then you COULD NOT POSSIBLY be playing a CRPG. Because, not to be tedious with repetition:

in RPG a gameplay fully depends on stats - from basic combat to any interaction with a world.

But we have to add: "except all the gameplay and all the interaction with the world that depends on the input of the player, but only where said input concerns mental skills (as modeled by INT, et al) and not physical skills (as modeled by DEX, et al).

Great position. But what I'm saying is the rule is arbitrary and applies only where folks want to disqualify games they don't like, as opposed to being grounded in some inherent property of the CRPG genre. The fact is that back in the olden days when most classics came out, games mostly fit this mental-skills-usurpation-only model. But that's not a logically compelling reason to shut "newer" games like Gothic out of the genre.

UNLESS you just want to define CRPG strictly as third-person or turn-based or generally olde skool affairs. To do so arbitrarily is your choice. But don't pretend you have some inviolable logical reason for it. Because INT and ALIGN are just as encompassing character stats as DEX.

 

[zenbitz]

/thread over

Yeesh wins.

 

[Xi]

What Yeesh said, but to reiterate:

All RPGs must have some form of character development. The more character development, and the more reliance that the game has on the character and the character's abilities, the more RPG the game is. C&C is purely a function found within the context of character design. Good character design equals better character functionality(power gaming), with bad character development being punished and character weakness and game difficulty increasing.(Which may be enjoyable for some)

The one missing factor, something that would enhance cRPG design, is more character->Environment interaction. Currently the main environmental interaction is combat, looting, and linear NPC story/chat. Imagine if there was more than just these simple interactions? However, like Yeesh was pointing out, these do not define what it means to be an RPG, rather they promote how an RPG could be made better, and need not be a part of the current semantic definition.

All modern cRPGs are games of character development. That's it!

 

[spectre]

Going back to the little discussion with Yeesh.

Ok, one thing we have is clear, you want to have a fool-proof system for determining if something is rpg or not.

The problem is, you want to have a definite test which yieds a simple true/false answer, and unfortunately this is not possible. I sustain my definition that in an rpg character skill > player skill.

However, this is not a true/false distincion, but a continuum (as the > sign implies, the more of something, the better). Having said this, I think one can pretty much gauge what games I feel are more rpg oriented, and which are less.

...UNLESS we're talking about the character's mental strengths and weaknesses, or moral choices, right? Because those are different from the character's ability to dodge or something crucial like that.

All right. Your nice conspiracy theory. Methinks you conveniently missed the part when I talked about Fallout. Perhaps add Arcanum to the mix to see how it's done.

In there you see int and personality stats having an impact within a game. If somebody isn't highly intelligent in such games, say good bye to the really smart dialogue choices. Moreover, if the character is a complete moron, say goodbye to a lot of quests as well. Yes, here's where your toted mental strengths and weaknessess are. Few fames have them, let's admit it, but that makes these few games more rpg in my opinion.

Last time I chcecked, the argument was over player skill/b] <character> player decisions. Player provides the decisions, the character provides the skill (if the player chooses solutions unsuited to the character, there will be consequences: namely failing).

Now to the specifics:

Great position. But what I'm saying is the rule is arbitrary and applies only where folks want to disqualify games they don't like, as opposed to being grounded in some inherent property of the CRPG genre. The fact is that back in the olden days when most classics came out, games mostly fit this mental-skills-usurpation-only model. But that's not a logically compelling reason to shut "newer" games like Gothic out of the genre.

Let's twist this, if you don't understand the distinction and do not like it, that's your only reason to disqualify it? Whatever man, don't like my guidelines, make your own. That's the beauty of opinion, because until we have a codified and recognized genre distinction it's all opinions.

One question, what the fuck is it about that we "should" allow games such as Gothic to have the "exclusive" rpg label? Not every game out there needs to be an rpg, even if the devs reallly would like it to be so.
For the record, I always thought the franchise has strong rpg elements, but the whole system is rather lightweight, tainted a lot by its action-ey side (and there could be a bit more character development) <= that's my opinion based on the proposed distinction and I think it does the game justice.

Now, if you look closely, my definition doesn't disqualify Gothic. On the contrary, I actually liked what I saw in Gothic 1, when it comes to player vs. character skill. Even though fighting is twitch based, character stats really influence it a great deal (just see how an untrained and a trained fighter wields a sword for the rugh idea).
And other things, if the character does not know how to sneak, lockpick or whatever, then he cannot do it.

I would rather say it shows the game for what it is: quite strong rpg tendencies, enough to be called one, but with a few buts in between.

All RPGs must have some form of character development. The more character development, and the more reliance that the game has on the character and the character's abilities, the more RPG the game is. C&C is purely a function found within the context of character design

I agree with the first bit a lot. And the second. If the game is pretty light in the development part, then it is also light in the rpg side of things.

However, I think that C&C, if we're to have/discuss them, should rather find their function in the realm of morality within the game.