What do you think makes a game a role-playing game?

[EvoG]

I'm VERY late to this party, so excuse me if I'm dredging here, but I really like what I've been reading. Not only did this thread survive three whole pages staying on topic with no flaming, there wasn't even heated disagreement, but rather a very open discussion where everyone saw every other persons opinion! I'm so damned proud!

Quickly, I was going through my back catelogue of designs, and came across an adventure game of all things, that was post apoc. I wanted to introduce combat, and had to ask "how do you make a combat system but within the conventions of an old school adventure game?" On that, I started thinking of a number-less system for my current project, and passing this on to Saint...



... he surprisingly shot me down...

Saint_Proverbius: Fuck that.



...proceeded to make a meaningful comparison that really helped me...

Saint_Proverbius: "Numberless systems are cool" is about the same as saying, "I'm a retarded moron."




...but gave no reasons why he's so pro-stat...

Saint_Proverbius: Do a search on RPG Codex. There's a bunch of threads about how retarded an idea it is.




...I did...

...which lead me to find this, and I'm happy with the direction, and only hoped more was 'hashed' out for a refined system. Not only was Ismaul eloquent, he practically stated in its entirety what I wanted to discuss. Both him and Roleplayer maintained the strongest points of view countering eachother, yet finding a common ground.

One small thing that people I dont feel were getting was the concept of 'number-less'. The system of course DOES have numbers for the sake of computation, but is masked from the player. Its "goal" is to remove the XP farming/powergaming/spreadsheet style of gameplay which makes "roleplaying" less about being a character and more about being a selection of statistics. Stats exist now because pnp stats existed on paper simply because 'something' had to track the experiences of the player. Computers can do that just fine.

One thing computers can do better is deliver overt methods other than numbers. I'm an animator as my 'day-job', and one fun aspect of the job is taking the character/creature, giving it character and making sure I can convey that through pantomime(animation). I'm acting out not only the explicit motion, but the underlying idiosyncrasies of that character. This ends up being very satisfying as the creature is now more alive. A functional "attack" animation is one thing, but the fluid but ravaging ape like pummeling of an enraged beast is another. Animation is one vital method to convey skill, along side being emotive and narrative. We can exploit the visual benefits we gain from playing on a computer.

The one thing that is repeated in practically any discussion that is had about gaming is the idea that precedence precedes innovation; that design somehow isn't malleable or flexible. Realise that any concept is not at the mercy of a failed implementation that has come before. We're free in to invent and to create and even re-create. I'd love to see this discussion go further. Breaking with some convention might just be very refreshing, regardless of what my long time buddy says! :D


Cheers

 

[Atrokkus]

I've already came up with this idea of hiding the numbers, and I don't think it's something really new by itself, the implementation of that idea is a novelty that is yet to be seen. The problem is that the game must have a very advanced graphic engine to feature this sort of realistic roleplaying, because the player should *see* (not read) a lot of physical changes that his character is undergoing. For instance, there should be no flashy message "You character is DISEASED!", you must not really know the *diagnosis*, but see only symptoms (coughing with blood or something) and inevitable consequences (death), if you tarry with treatment. That would really amplify the gameplay value, making player experience this real feel when you are you freaking out about every little weird symptom, fearing some serious disease.
But, of course, it's still all about stats, since it's RPG. That is, if your character has a high Endurance (for example), he'll have a bigger chance of healing or not get contaminated at all. Endurance is essentially an inborn characteristic, thus you can't "train" to increase it a big deal, but you can improve it a little with medicine or magic or something like that, but the trick is that you *WON'T* see the numeric value of Endurance! But you surely see the effect of some medicine if you, like, go into some contaminated region and not get sick.

I like the idea of a lot of bodily characteristics being constantly monitored. Say, something like pain model - showing your body wire-model and if someone hits you, say, in the leg, you get the red flash there, and the intensity of the flash is correlated to the intensity of pain. And the pain might produce a pain-shock which may even kill your char. and so on with other symptomatic stats. The player should see those symptoms on his HUD, just like in RL you feel them, directly through the nerve system, but you surely can't say for certain how much, say, Strength you have, although you can determine it approximately by looking at your muscle size (and in our case, by looking at your character's muscles).

Of course, the system of improving your basic stats and skills should follow the "practice makes perfect" scenario, plus the 'teachers' (books, people etc) that might improve the stat-progression (but it's still practice that increases that, just in a better pace with the outside help). But there should be some limiting factors, and a lot of balance tweaks, in order for this system to be interesting and not cheesy at the same time.

But, as was stated over and over again above, stats are essential to an RPG. What isn't, however, is whether player sees them or not.

 

[Sarvis]

I wanted to introduce combat, and had to ask "how do you make a combat system but within the conventions of an old school adventure game?"

You're just going to confuse them more...

 

[Twinfalls]

EvoG, two comments:

Firstly I think the 'how to remove visible stats' problem is intractable. No-one seems able to get very far past the obvious starting point - giving health a visual indicator (Annes' heart tattoo in Trespasser :wink: ). After that you get into resource hogging (different animations for different agility levels), gay shit (glowing auras for magic level), and the rest is just plain impossible (endurance, willpower, bartering).

Secondly, I suspect the reason Saint responded the way he did is because he is one of the many RPGers for whom stats basically define RPGs. Consequently, the whole push away from stats, driven as it is by the need for greater commercial 'accessibility', tears at the very fabric of RPGs, making them weaker and weaker experiences. And perhaps he feels that any striving for less 'obvious' stats, is part and parcel of the culture driving RPGs towards less stats, period.

Do you get what I'm saying? It's a kind of political thing. In making moves towards reducing the number of visible stats, you are helping foster a culture of players wanting less actual stats. Fable being the ultimate example of the worst outcome of this push.

Hence, I guess, the hostile response. (Edit: note I am not justifying the nature of his response - he ought to be slapped around like a bitch for it, but simply theorising on the reason behind it)

Here's Jeff Vogel with his viewof the role of stats in RPGs (I know you're not saying stats themselves aren't important, but this might be interesting anyway).

Here is my picture of what a computer RPG is. You run the game for the first time, and you are handed a set of numbers. Then, by spending your time and solving a series of tactical puzzles, you make the numbers higher. Higher numbers enable you to complete harder tactical puzzles. When your numbers are high enough, you solve the final puzzle and win.

Games of this sort are often given "plot" and "role-playing" elements to lend some context to the puzzles and generate additional interest. As the success of Diablo and EverQuest has shown us, this can be done in only the most cursory and ignorable way.

Plot and character are sort of like pineapple on pizza. Some people really love it, but it is a detraction to many, and almost nobody actually requires it.

This is all fine. The great joy of playing RPGs is the sense of building something, of starting with something small and weak and, though time and skill, making it bigger. When you get up from the computer, you have the illusion of having made something better, and this satisfying feeling is a huge part of the appeal.

Whether this is silly and lame or not is beside the point. This is why statless systems have never really caught on. They shift the focus entirely away from where it should be.

This may sound odd coming from a person who has always worked very hard to have intricate, detailed plots for his games. But I have never, ever neglected the number-crunching aspect of it.

taken from:

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/436/436852p3.html

 

[kris]

One small thing that people I dont feel were getting was the concept of 'number-less'. The system of course DOES have numbers for the sake of computation, but is masked from the player. Its "goal" is to remove the XP farming/powergaming/spreadsheet style of gameplay which makes "roleplaying" less about being a character and more about being a selection of statistics. Stats exist now because pnp stats existed on paper simply because 'something' had to track the experiences of the player. Computers can do that just fine.

But as mentioned, the character sheet is not the thing that makes a game a powergaming or not, it is the gamemechanics that stipulate that. Regardless how you want the abilities/skills/personality presented to the player it still works the same way. I have no idea how many roleplaying games you played, but many of them already did these things, like having quantitiative terms and some cases not using numbers at all.

What difference do you do if you hide those numbers and abilities fromthe player? You confuse him about the character he plays, you take away the character from him. You could possibly make a game that let you define your character by his actions instead of predeterming his characteristics. I don't think that is what you are saying and then you put everything in the players hand of how he want to do things, we do with that of course take away llimitations of the character if we don't put out some of them. Its like we begin playing someone that can do everything, but have to learn it first. The classic scenario of when you can't make your own character as in Gothic.

If the improvement system is skill or levelbased is another discussion that you seem to hint on.

One thing computers can do better is deliver overt methods other than numbers. I'm an animator as my 'day-job', and one fun aspect of the job is taking the character/creature, giving it character and making sure I can convey that through pantomime(animation). I'm acting out not only the explicit motion, but the underlying idiosyncrasies of that character. This ends up being very satisfying as the creature is now more alive. A functional "attack" animation is one thing, but the fluid but ravaging ape like pummeling of an enraged beast is another. Animation is one vital method to convey skill, along side being emotive and narrative. We can exploit the visual benefits we gain from playing on a computer.

The computers don't do it better, they just move the image from the players mind to the creators mind. What you do as a animator or art director or something is whos YOUR world and YOUR view on things in a more clear way. In a PnP the description can be better or worse, but it is within the imagination of the player and describer. You got it a little backwards when you say the computer deliver overt methods better than numbers, for it is number it is anything deliver better.

This ties quite nicely with a discussion I had in another thread about this. Immersion and presentation, not to forget that contra depth and quantity.

This is true to some extent. Player that focus on stats can be the problem, but it's more of a pnp situation. Currently, I believe it's the games that focus on stats.

Games and players. and it goes both ways, like how teen me saw stats as important and killing stuff as important in the RPG and the present me don't care much about them. We could play a whole evening without a single combat situation.

Now, a stat based character sheet cannot encompass a whole role. If the game focuses on the stats, we get a truncated rolepalying game that will mostly be based on combat, which is the most obvious thing to stat out. Just look at the current rpgs coming out.

Of course it can. the sheet determine who the character are as a limitation to the player. If the game (or GM) doesn't enforce upon those things (like telling the shy character that he shouldn't hit on all chicks) then that limitation is windowdressing. Of course the same goes if there is no situations where that thing matters in the game/campaign. You can put everything and nothing on the sheet, everything that is not there is in the head of the player. Things hidden from the player in the game just makes it less of a roleplaying game as then the player don't know his character and someone not knowing his character can't be able to roleplay well.


There's another thing we all wish for in rpgs, it's the reactiveness of the world, choices that have an impact, immersion, "make believe". We think of people qualitatively. Even if there are ways to measure skills, personnality and other things with some rating systems, we don't think about people that way. You don't say "on a scale of 0 (introverted) to 100 (extraverted), I feel he's at 23". You'd say "this guy is pretty reserved". That's why I believe a qualitative system favors roleplaying.

You can't have a qualitative system with 50 "levels" of a skill. There's not enough different words to make one. The most you can have is around 10. Sure, people who like numbers and the illusion of improvement they provide won't like much a smaller scale, but I think it favors its implementation in-game.

Of course you can handly it in several ways. 50 levels of a skill could be represented by 5 different words that encompass 10 each of them, it has been done before and can be done again. Even if only those 10 is steps in getting to the next level...

It's easier for a developper to implement the reaction of the world to your character's improvement when there is less "levels" in the advancement of the skill.

It doesn't have to be. A 1-100 can be better if there is number crunching as that gives him more options and a greater range of randomness. while more options can make it less easy, having a greater ranger for randomness can be positive.

Plus, the player has a more concrete understanding of his character's improvement, since the small scale makes improvement more significative (again, if the game isn't shitty).

This for me sounds retarded. It sounds just like the XBOX generation want it, have it only as "bad or good" and it will be easy to understand. No, how to understand a characters development and how good he is is more of a comparement issue.

Hey, I never shoved aside character advancement. Only you don't need stats to do it. You just need a way to compare your character with others, stats, words, appearance or else.

Where stats is the most easily understandable for a human brain. Appearance being on the other scale as that is a subjective scale. I can also imagine someone at character creation making the muscles bigger, not really knowing how strong he is making his character or how the world will react on it.

I don't think advancement is a requirement, that would mean a D&D game in which you don't gain a level isn't roleplaying. If the world reacts to broad abilities of an in-game character, it doesn't matter if the character's skills get better or not.

It is about scale, just like I dislike how you go from "can't beat a rat" until you can shoot planets with your arse don't I like total lack of advancement. In a small campaign in a PnP you could easily go trough it with no advancement and it most likely would be very realistic too. Just like you in one week of your life doesn't learn significally enough to make a difference in roleplaying terms. (less so if you quantity with bad/good :D)

I think there is always character progression while roleplaying. It doesn't need to be in skill increase, it can simply be the character's life experiences that are greater after roleplaying that before.

= skill progression and/or change of personality.

 

[Claw]

Is it too late to mention Mu's Unbelievably Long and Disjointed Ramblings About RPG Design?
I agree with just about everything said therein, including the idea of avoiding numerical feedback to the player as much as possible.
I think Mu went as far as suggesting that the player should simply get an idea of his character's abilities by observing how well the character performs, which I don't perfectly agree with.
I personally favour the idea of iconized indicators with varying brightness and opacity. It would be hard to tell a small change, but the player could see if some values vary considerably and would have a rough idea whether a value is high, low or mediocre.

 

[Twinfalls]

<snip>

 

[Claw]

Looking at a bunch of numbers isn't terribly intellectual in the first place.
At least part of the idea is to mask the game mechanics from the players, by not showing exactly what is what, only give a vague reference.

And hey, what's with the deletin'?

 

[Mulciber]

Perhaps the idea of making quantification invisible is flawed because quantification is visible in the real world.
Wouldn't it make more sense to allow the character to find out how good they are at something by doing it?
If I want to know how much I can bench-press, I load up some weights and start lifting. If I want to know how well I fight, I go to the bar and punch that flabby guy in the corner.

 

[Claw]

Well, that's exactly what Mu wrote. And I don't think it contradicts "making quantification invisible" as you only see the results of the application of your abilities. A combination of those, even.

 

[Twinfalls]

Oh - you read that. Just figured it was a rant (basically: 'what's the big deal with asking players to look at numbers anyway?') which was a bit redundant given my previous post.

 

[Lumpy]

Role playing what kind of character you want. Stats naturally derive from that.

 

[Balor]

Well, you always forgetting that 'rising stats' in RPGs for some people is, essentially 'gaining score points' in arcades.
They aren’t interested in playing a role - they want to max out all the numbers, or to get them as high as possible.
Well, while it may be feasible in multiplayer (bragging rights and so on), when applied to single, it's really stupid.

People should learn to gain enjoyment from the process, not from the result... if simply because process takes long time, while achieving result is a single event.

Removing numerical representation of stats from the game at least removes the temptation to max them out.

 

[Mulciber]

Ah.
Tried the link erlier, bit was bounced. Went back and tried it again. It is a very interesting read.
I was trying to point out that there isn't anything incongruous about being able to obtain a numerical value for your abilities. Providing a way for the player to find out that they can lift X kilograms or run at 15 km/h is a way to get your metrics without breaking game immersion.

 

[Twinfalls]

Removing numerical representation of stats from the game at least removes the temptation to max them out.

Ah, but should not the game designer rise to the challenge of keeping the stats, but making the player not focus on maxing them out. Ie encourage the player to roleplay, through balance, and rewards that are outside player stat-climbing?

 

[Micmu]

He's talking more about MMORPGs... ("Mu")

 

[Balor]

He's talking more about MMORPGs...

Heh, if only.

 

[EvoG]

Alright, I just woke up to all this, read it and want to think about it.


Just quick notes:

• I do NOT want to reduce the number of skills/stats a player has. On the contrary, I want a higher degree of interaction density within the gameworld, both with the world and with NPC's.
  
• I want to step back from spreadsheet gameplay. Many gamers may not do it, but I'd love for there to be an organic integration into the world, not purely statistical. It may not be possible, and I'm certainly not going to be hard headed about it, but I'd love something different.
  
• Combat is a forced focus, that I think should be minimized, or at least more dangerous. Witches Wake made good strides to deemphasizing combat by removing XP gains from them. Combat btw in the game WILL be turn based.

Coffee, donuts and more awakednessfullness, and a bit more thought and I'll come right back.


Cheers

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, that's exactly what Mu wrote. And I don't think it contradicts "making quantification invisible" as you only see the results of the application of your abilities. A combination of those, even.

The reason Mu is a moron is because it's much easier to show the player that he's doing 150 points damage as opposed to 175 damage when he's picked up a new weapon with numbers rather than actions. A few extra red particles jumping off the target when he's been hit isn't going to cut it. Showing the numbers WILL show the player he's doing better with a new weapon.

In fact, look at weapons. You pick up a claymore and a magical longsword. If they don't give the stats of the weapons, how are you going to know which is better? One of the big excuses as to why people don't do Sci-Fi CRPGs is because people don't know what new weapons do. It's hard to tell which is better. If you take away the numbers, you've put yourself in that boat.

Another way to look at it is a real world analogy. You go in to a store and buy a new chair. There's no price tag on the chair. You take the chair up to the counter and hand the lady your credit card(which, BTW, works with numbers, but let's ignore that). She charges the card some amount, and hands it back to you without a reciept. You then leave the store with the chair and go home to balance your check book. OOOPS! You don't have any numbers to tell you how much you paid for that chair.

Now, would anyone put themselves in that situation? Probably not. Numbers are wonderful things. They tell you exactly where you are in something and exactly how much you've improved or waned in something. Anyone who thinks numberless systems are cool should probably put down the bong long enough to think clearly.

 

[Sarvis]

In fact, look at weapons. You pick up a claymore and a magical longsword. If they don't give the stats of the weapons, how are you going to know which is better? One of the big excuses as to why people don't do Sci-Fi CRPGs is because people don't know what new weapons do. It's hard to tell which is better. If you take away the numbers, you've put yourself in that boat.

Is that necessarily a bad thing though? If I pick up a katana in real life, or a claymore in real life I don't really know which one works better. In fact it's a common subject of debate as to how effective a katana really is! The fact is that in real life many quantities are unknown to us, so hiding those numbers in a game may provide more realism along with moving players away from numerical gaming. Is it somehow a bad thing if Bob picks the claymore because it looks cool, even if it does less damage than the longsword?

 

[EvoG]

The reason Mu is a moron is because it's much easier to show the player that he's doing 150 points damage as opposed to 175 damage when he's picked up a new weapon with numbers rather than actions. A few extra red particles jumping off the target when he's been hit isn't going to cut it. Showing the numbers WILL show the player he's doing better with a new weapon.

This is exactly my point...the obsessive micro-managment of tiny fractions of numbers; the 8 - 12 long sword to the 10 - 14 broadsword. This is a problem with design, and an excuse in your case why we must have numbers. If we didn't place so much importance on gaining 2 extra points of damage, this wouldn't be a problem, exactly was Ismaul said about 'scale factor'.

In fact, look at weapons. You pick up a claymore and a magical longsword. If they don't give the stats of the weapons, how are you going to know which is better? One of the big excuses as to why people don't do Sci-Fi CRPGs is because people don't know what new weapons do. It's hard to tell which is better. If you take away the numbers, you've put yourself in that boat.

Design, not the numbers. See people, this was my point of sticking too hard to convention and basing your arguement solely on precedence without even humoring the idea of something different. This is a perfect case of "well someone else did it and it sucked so the WHOLE SYSTEM sucks". This is no different than saying "hey that <insert race> guy is stupid, therefore, ALL <insert same race> guys are stupid.

Another way to look at it is a real world analogy. You go in to a store and buy a new chair. There's no price tag on the chair. You take the chair up to the counter and hand the lady your credit card(which, BTW, works with numbers, but let's ignore that). She charges the card some amount, and hands it back to you without a reciept. You then leave the store with the chair and go home to balance your check book. OOOPS! You don't have any numbers to tell you how much you paid for that chair.

I love you Saint the way a man loves another man on the internet, but this is...this is...I know you were getting ready for work, so you didn't have a lot of time for this. :D You mention two types of numbers here. You're implying the damage of the sword is synonymous with the price of the chair. Interestingly, both items share both values as well. The sword has a price and the chair has quality. YOUR example doesn't work simply because the price is a relevent and expressable number, but the chairs qualilty is NOT. You can tell if its better made. You can decide its more comfortable or will look good in your study, but those are not numerically quantitative values. So of COURSE you need numbers to determine the price of the chair, as you would the PRICE of the sword. Fact is, the price might even be indicative of the QUALITY of the sword, couldn't it? Why would this guy charge more for what appears to be just a sword? Perhaps it has history as told by the shopkeeper? Perhaps its made from a rare metal that keeps a fine edge?

Just perhaps, WE place too much value in what amounts to arbitrarily minute values for distinction. We know that a BIG sword probably is more devastating than a small sword, then again, any blade over 3 inches right to the kidneys or across the throat is pretty devastating, and, its concealable...hmmm...makes you think now about that slightly more powerful sword

Now, would anyone put themselves in that situation?

Yes

Probably not.

Oh come on, try it!

Numbers are wonderful things. They tell you exactly where you are in something and exactly how much you've improved or waned in something. Anyone who thinks numberless systems are cool should probably put down the bong long enough to think clearly.

I bet a lot of crazy ideas came from a hit or three. To be honest, I'm certain a system can be made, and I'd love to be the one to experiment right now with what I'm working on, but too many people are so close-minded. They are so adamant that the status quo is maintained, that they refuse to try new things.

I'll repeat, precedence does NOT preceed innovation. Just because something DIDN'T work doesn't mean it can't, or we wouldn't be so close to teleportation technology...remember that.

 

[EvoG]

Is it somehow a bad thing if Bob picks the claymore because it looks cool, even if it does less damage than the longsword?

No, and with this you are hitting near the heart (with +2 to hit) with this discussion; a CHARACTER may prefer the claymore because it 'feels' right, or just looks cool. He likes the whistle it makes being swung and the weight of it cleaving through fleshy meats. A powergamer will NEVER make this attachment, because he found a completely different sword that does another few points of damage.

We get past the statistics, we get more into character. If the DESIGN requires you bleed every ounce damage you can out of your equipment, it BECOMES about those few points of damage, and not about the roleplaying. This is where DESIGN fails, not the concept. What makes an SMG more dangerous than a revolver? Lead on target. What does more damage? Odds are good the revolver, such as the devatatsing .454 casull that over penetrates the hay and concrete barriers at the shooting range. Why use a revolver in combat? Accuracy yes, but in combat I'd want more bullets in the air, because bullets hurt period, not just the +1 ones. Then again, the opponent is wearing kevlar, and I'm not putting any lead on his body. The Casull will hit him and his buddy behind him hiding behind that car. Go into a restricted town but dont want to be weaponless, you need concealment. Revolvers are effortless to clean, IF you even have to clean them. You see, when you start encouraging some abiguity and base things on touch, feel and context, you can step back from rigid numerical descriptors, and give things more substance.

 

[bryce777]

If you design your game system properly, every weapon will have its place.

For example, a claymore could be a heavier weapon that hits harder but is more difficult to control unless you have a high strength. So unless you have a very high strength or can afford a tohit penalty it sucks.

Or it could be better for parrying but be unable to thrust.

 

[EvoG]

Thats right Bryce. In SW Dark Forces, you would still use the blaster pistol even near the end of the game, as it was less about simply using the weapon that did more damage, but also the weapon that had accuracy, especially at range. The blaster had the one of the highest accuracies in the game at long range, while the blaster rifle spit fire. The rifle consumed twice as much ammo per shot than the blaster and shot wildly, but if you're in CQC, thats the way to go. Down a long hallway, and the blaster pistol is the way to do it, with slow but straight and methodical shooting.

 

[EvoG]

One thing I wanted to bring up about ADVENTURE GAME design is the idea of keeping tools that are too useful away from the player, as they tend to reduce the effort the player needs apply to solve a problem. A gun is a no-no in AG's, not because of some arbitary aversion to violence, but because a gun can solve many puzzles. You could easily prevent this by having the character say "I dont want to use my gun on that", but then you start getting into arbitary restrictions on the player, and we know how suckful that is. So their solution is to simply not have guns, or ANY tool that could be 'too useful'. As odd as that may sound, it works. Forces AG designers to be creative and for the player to really think about the story, characters and puzzles.

The one thing that always bothered me about RPG's, is the one thing that MAKES an RPG. Skills and stats go so far in removing the player from doing anything himself, except make choices that either are or are not available to him based on what choices he made in the character creation screen. Playing a science character only allows you to have extra dialogue that would otherwise be hidden, or you can use science on one or two types of objects in the game to see if you can 'get info' or 'turn something on/off'. Effectively, and I need you guys to step back and think about this, but effectively, all you're doing is creating a character, which in turn then 'unlocks' choices you can make in the game world, then you go ahead and move through said world expressing these choices.

You dont really have to think about anything. You dont solve puzzles really, you just do INT rolls for your character.

You dont use any of your own dexterity in combat, just your characers AGI and weapon skills. This is why I wanted to have just a FEW more tactics in TB combat.

At least allow the player to put a bit of himself into the game. Choice is wonderful and entirely necessary, but so is challenge, and I dont think RPG's go far enough to intellectually challenge players. I think these character sheets become too much a focus and the entire game is played from them, completely removing the player from actually participating OTHER than again, making choices.

(and no, I dont consider choosing to use aimed shots or snap shots or a stimpak or hiding behind a wall, significant sources of challenge.)