<p>You probably all remember that ye RPGs of olde only were turn-based because the devs of yesterday <a href="http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=59806" target="_blank">lacked the tech to make action games</a>. Craig Stern from Sinister Design <a href="http://sinisterdesign.net/?p=830">continues the debate</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s currently vogue to define RPGs as games where character stats, and not player skill, determine the outcome of in-game challenges. However, as a longtime fan of both RPGs and action games, I find the frequently bandied-about skill-based distinction between the two somewhat arbitrary.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Consider the following question. <em>Which is more colorful: orange or purple?</em> Or this. <em>Which is meatier: steak or sausage?</em> These are clearly rather inane questions. Orange and purple are both colors; steak and sausage are both meat. They are merely different variations on the same theme.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To say that action game challenges require more skill than turn-based game challenges is rather like saying that orange is more colorful than purple. The whole premise is nonsensical. Consider baseball and chess. Sure, baseball requires physical skill, excellent reflexes, and a limited degree of tactical decision-making from its players. But while chess does not require physical ability or reflexes, it does require tactical skills several orders of magnitude greater than those a baseball player requires. One cannot really say that either game requires <em>more </em>skill than the other: both require skill, but of different types.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I challenge the action gamer who thinks turn-based RPGs require no skill to <a href="http://indierpgs.com/2010/08/game-review-eschalon-book-ii/">play Eschalon: Book II</a> or <a href="http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/5687.html">Nethack</a> for more than an hour. I think he will find himself quite lacking in certain skills that he never had to develop playing <em>Gravel-Voiced Manly Sword-Swinging Demon Slayer Of War 5</em>. And while it is certainly true that not all turn-based RPGs require the same level of skill that Eschalon or Nethack do, we needn’t pretend that action games are all paragons of challenge either. They <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/e6xqm/">aren’t</a>, <a href="http://www.supercheats.com/guides/Fable-2/combat/">aren’t</a> and <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/07/1-25-million-download-parody-advergame/">aren’t</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So let’s be honest with each other. Development houses aren’t churning out action RPGs because they require skill to play. These developers aren’t sitting around their offices playing turn-based RPGs, thinking “Gosh, this game is so easy; if only we made it so the player had to <em>mash a button…</em>”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>No. Skill isn’t the reason for the recent glut of action RPGs: <em>money </em>is. Development houses are churning out these games because they see a large market for them, one larger than the market for turn-based games. And that’s fine. They are businesses, after all, and they are entitled to cater to the market however they think will best ensure their continued survival.</p>
<p>But at the same time, these developers shouldn’t feel free to trumpet their <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/huntedthedemonsforge/review.html?tag=updates%3Blatest%3Breviews%3Btitle%3B4">mindless little hack-and-slash clickfests</a> as something inherently superior to the more deliberate games that came before them. After all is said and done, turn-based RPGs were never a detour–just a different destination.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s currently vogue to define RPGs as games where character stats, and not player skill, determine the outcome of in-game challenges. However, as a longtime fan of both RPGs and action games, I find the frequently bandied-about skill-based distinction between the two somewhat arbitrary.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Consider the following question. <em>Which is more colorful: orange or purple?</em> Or this. <em>Which is meatier: steak or sausage?</em> These are clearly rather inane questions. Orange and purple are both colors; steak and sausage are both meat. They are merely different variations on the same theme.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To say that action game challenges require more skill than turn-based game challenges is rather like saying that orange is more colorful than purple. The whole premise is nonsensical. Consider baseball and chess. Sure, baseball requires physical skill, excellent reflexes, and a limited degree of tactical decision-making from its players. But while chess does not require physical ability or reflexes, it does require tactical skills several orders of magnitude greater than those a baseball player requires. One cannot really say that either game requires <em>more </em>skill than the other: both require skill, but of different types.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I challenge the action gamer who thinks turn-based RPGs require no skill to <a href="http://indierpgs.com/2010/08/game-review-eschalon-book-ii/">play Eschalon: Book II</a> or <a href="http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/5687.html">Nethack</a> for more than an hour. I think he will find himself quite lacking in certain skills that he never had to develop playing <em>Gravel-Voiced Manly Sword-Swinging Demon Slayer Of War 5</em>. And while it is certainly true that not all turn-based RPGs require the same level of skill that Eschalon or Nethack do, we needn’t pretend that action games are all paragons of challenge either. They <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/e6xqm/">aren’t</a>, <a href="http://www.supercheats.com/guides/Fable-2/combat/">aren’t</a> and <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/07/1-25-million-download-parody-advergame/">aren’t</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So let’s be honest with each other. Development houses aren’t churning out action RPGs because they require skill to play. These developers aren’t sitting around their offices playing turn-based RPGs, thinking “Gosh, this game is so easy; if only we made it so the player had to <em>mash a button…</em>”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>No. Skill isn’t the reason for the recent glut of action RPGs: <em>money </em>is. Development houses are churning out these games because they see a large market for them, one larger than the market for turn-based games. And that’s fine. They are businesses, after all, and they are entitled to cater to the market however they think will best ensure their continued survival.</p>
<p>But at the same time, these developers shouldn’t feel free to trumpet their <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/huntedthedemonsforge/review.html?tag=updates%3Blatest%3Breviews%3Btitle%3B4">mindless little hack-and-slash clickfests</a> as something inherently superior to the more deliberate games that came before them. After all is said and done, turn-based RPGs were never a detour–just a different destination.</p>
</blockquote>
Really, he has a point. I'm not arguing that Gothic has actioncombat. I'm only arguing that there are no traditional rpgs that are party-based and turn-based.
