Are the paradigms of role-playing outdated?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Just when you thought it was safe to read the Codex, Role-Player blinds us with yet another long-winded <i>arrgh!</i>ticle about computer role-playing games based on his industry expertise as a couch potato. This time, the infidel demands we lay down our weapons against the mainstream invaders and sell our babies into slavery! Oh, and there's some words in there too:

Unlike physical stats, which can be fitted into the system through much more meaningful ways even if they can succumb to the same issues, social stats like Intelligence and Charisma cause more problems than those they set out to solve for a very simple reason. You can not force players to role-play their stats, and you can't force those stats to help players role-play. This dredges up an earlier point – the absence of a direct mental link between player and character ends up rendering the adherence to social stats trite and ineffective. In the long run, the impact of mental and social stats that limit a character's progress becomes either negligible or a hassle since you can not code personality traits the player does not have the ability to play nor can you give gamers a personality trait they have no idea of how to role-play. And in terms of how storylines are advanced, this causes a great rift as well considering many times players can see right through plot twists or narrative directions before the characters do.

With that said... Get rid of Intelligence and Charisma as a play mechanic that influences dialogue.

Awarding his "ideas" with 2 out of 5 Goatses just doesn't cut it anymore. For the good of the people, Role-Player must be stopped!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Role-Player? More like Lawl-Player, amirite?

 

[Sovard]

I've always been a fan of stat/attribute influenced gameplay in RPGs. In essence, I feel, the options added or removed based on these things almost enforce roleplaying.

It's not accurate to cite PS:T's lack of this as you're actually a pre-selected character, rather than something you created beforehand. You'll always be the Nameless One, no matter how many times you replay.

As for Bloodlines, iirc, dialogue was sometimes influenced by clan rather than stats (but truthfully, I don't think it changed the outcome of the dialogue.) Technically, it was not entirely free of that mechanic.

I think that if you even have a charisma-like stat you're almost forced to implement dialogue that incorporates it. Just having it for skiill affinities kind of cheapens the experience.

Most people don't actually roleplay in an RPG anyway. So it almost falls upon the designers to more and more cater to a crowd that doesn't want these enforced influences on their game. They can play a nigh retarded brute and still make snarky comments without even the slightest recognition of the person they're speaking to. It really undermines the point of dialogue in the first place.

I didn't read your entire article btw, redding is teh hard. Down with text. Dialogue is the devil.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's not accurate to cite PS:T's lack of this as you're actually a pre-selected character, rather than something you created beforehand. You'll always be the Nameless One, no matter how many times you replay.

Which is irrelevant, since technically it doesn't affect the option of including dumb dialogue.

As for Bloodlines, iirc, dialogue was sometimes influenced by clan rather than stats (but truthfully, I don't think it changed the outcome of the dialogue.) Technically, it was not entirely free of that mechanic.

Statistics had a role in dialogue, and enabled the PCs to charm or threaten others. Clans, in particular, worked much like conditions that gave special dialogue options. Nothing really prevents from actions in a gameworld to do the same.

So it almost falls upon the designers to more and more cater to a crowd that doesn't want these enforced influences on their game.

I think designers are in a unique position to reverse that trend, but often prefere not to because they can't or won't design their way out of the mentality that players don't like to be challenged. It's a mantra that affects all levels of videogame design, including dialogue as a venue for character expression and ramifications in the social and gameworld networks.

It seems ironic that the companies we give the more flak to - Bioware, Bethesda and Obsidian - are the only one who still do this, even if in the more casual market levels. Oblivion was terrible in this aspect of course, but it still tried to cling to *some* concept of diplomatic options. It failed - miserably I might add - but tried. Then there's Vault and AoD, of course, but we already know it will rock.

I enjoy Charisma, and any other way that allows characters to be diverse (both in development and interaction). But it doesn't have to be solely depicted by flat stat checks.

 

[Castanova]

I agree with you - I find dialogue to be a snore in the large majority of RPGs and pumping up dialogue skills serve to either make the game ridiculously easy or to take away from the fun of killing stuff (which is the purpose of most cRPGs, for better or worse).

I like the idea of reputation and past actions affecting dialogue options. You know in old RPGs and, say, ADOM where you answer a host of situational questions which determine your statistics? Why not have the situations in the game act similarly. If you save the little boy from the robbers STAT A++ and STAT B--. Obviously, the available stats would need to change. The standard STR, DEX, CON, etc system wouldn't lend itself terribly well to that.

 

[Avu]

I think you raised many good points but I want to add something to consider. The life of a character does not start at the begging of a game, the experience he accumulates during the game and I'm not talking about that numeric value but about what the character discovers and learns during the course of the game is really just a small part of that character. I believe intelligence and charisma are abstractions of that life before the game very general abstractions I might add but they serve.

The alternative would be a background generation part of character generation. There are a lot of problems with this approach though. You can say you've learned about magic and herb lore in your past that is generic enough but what happens if you need to go in detail and assume experience with past historical/important events in the games world? How can you give someone the ability to chose something he has no clue about without meta gaming? Perhaps ample lore descriptions of the gameworld in this background generation would help maybe even solve that problem.

Also getting rid of charisma and intelligence altogether I think would be a waste they can still serve a purpose. Charisma I'd treat more like beauty/physical attractiveness (that stupid blond girl is still a jawdropper one you'd be happy to help if only because of the hormones taking over your common sense; if the target is a male with high charisma at least he is not a stinky disfigured individual and he''d get a better treatment than otherwise). Also some people with low charisma might favor similar people a few true but high charisma shouldn't guarantee a better reaction. Skills like speech, knowledge of the subject and other factors should affect the flow of the conversation after that initial reaction. So I'd make charisma a low cost stat something that still helps but is in no way comparable to the physical stats.

As for intelligence let's use your gun appraisal example. A total neophyte intelligent or not should do a botch of the job as your first example but here comes the twist what if when you later learn about science and economics a stupid character would fail to understand it all? He could still learn enough to call it a Ion Repeater Rifle but if asked how it works he'd simply be unable to explain, more study of the subject could improve the knowledge in that field but they'd still not make a rocket scientist out of a complete moron. Also characters should have memory problems (no not amnesia just errors). Low intelligence should forget a lot or worse mix things up in their head. Say you learn that your ion rifle costs 750 your mentally deficient character learns that but he also learns that a laser rifle costs 500 he then proceeds to sell his ion rifle and when asked for how much he mixes the numbers in his head and asks only for 500. Of course this should be random. A failure in sell values will make you lose money stupid people do that all the time. A failure when discussing some subject should lower the npc's disposition but only if the npc knows the subject better than you do (it is pretty annoying to speak with someone who has no clue what he's talking about). Hight intelligence could work in the opposite direction of course (learning about science comes so easily to you that you take that understanding to a new level and make interesting theories that are greatly appreciated by those that can similarly understand them. As with charisma a high intelligence is not essential after all the vast majority of people are not extremely intelligent and they get by but it should help. Add the skill bonus intelligence usually gives and it can still compete with strenght and agility.

 

[Top Hat]

RPGs really need a reboot. Well, maybe make that CRPGs - I don't have that much experience with PnP.

Since RPGs came about from wargaming, I'm guessing the stats were just reflections of the usual combat and movement modifiers. And CRPGs as they are now certainly work if your character is running around brawling or blowing up things in a dungeon, or perhaps "riding around on horseback and killing things".

The problem comes when people add a society (and all the associated and intertwined history, geography, religion, science, magic, language and social custom that arises from that): six to eight statistics just aren't going to cover everything you need to consider.

Of course, the problem with this is that computers are not naturally good at keeping track of such information because a computer only has access to finite resources. And then, as technology advances, it seems that instead of working on adding more to the society, developers seem most keen on ramping up the Bloom.

I agree with Role Player's suggestion (that I might be getting from reading too much into what he wrote) that perhaps we should let a character try everything, but perhaps make the success of the action dependent on the character's skill, with maybe some kind of warning for actions which are quite far out of the abilities of a character so that they know what this action is likely to fail and so they can judge the risks for themselves. It's how it works in real life, so why not how it works in a game which is supposed to simulate a part of someone's "real life" in a fictional world?

Dialogue also has the limitation of being up to preset phrases - which is understandable for console games, but given we have access to keyboards it seems a limit of freedom to stop us from typing in what we want our characters to say.

The problem with this approach, however, is getting the computer to respond. You'd need a good parser to be able to handle the natural-language AND find the intended meaning, then compare it to the character's abilities to check for success.

 

[Brother None]

Planescape checks past actions more than stats in order to determine dialogue. It's odd that you'd use Deus Ex as an example.

Also, while skimming over a few paragraphs because the writing isn't very good, I don't get your point. Do you believe in mono-linear development of computer games, much like mainstream developers? Do you think there's some kind of "natural" development by which computer developers should feel obliged to drop limitations made by original RPGs simply because they can? That makes no sense to me, because mono-linear development of any industry is a back-asswards myth.

There's nothing wrong with working within constraints set by the original genre just because the source of those constraints is set by a medium you're not longer working with. You can also do the alternative and ignore any classical constraints.

But to apply the logic to something else: turn-based combats is born out of the constraints of an original medium, real-time combat is a creation that has been made possible by the new medium. I can appreciate both being used, and don't consider one inherently inferior to the other. It's the nothing-short-of-idiotic assertion that one method has become "outdated" simply because its roots lie in another medium. What you're basically implying is that the computer gaming industry should be limited by constraints it no longer possesses, which is an inconceivably wrong statement.

Unless I missed something, it looks to me like you're asking the wrong question, because the question "Is this outdated" is an inherently wrong question to ask in an entertainment medium like gaming (just like "Is black and white outdated" is an inherently wrong question in the film industry). I'm thinking you mean to ask "Is the genre fully exploring the new possibilities of its new medium?" The answer would be no, but I don't consider that a huge problem considering it hasn't even explored the old possibilities fully yet.

 

[Castanova]

I don't think he was suggesting there's something inherently wrong with working within past constraints. I think the point was that most games automatically adhere to those constraints (STR,DEX,etc with pre-determined branching dialogue trees) despite them not working terribly well.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think he was suggesting there's something inherently wrong with working within past constraints. I think the point was that most games automatically adhere to those constraints (STR,DEX,etc with pre-determined branching dialogue trees) despite them not working terribly well.

Calling them outdated is indicating they are inherently wrong. Just because they've not been explored fully does not automatically mean giving up for another method is the right way to go, especially when you can work to explore both methods without any obvious problems. Sacrificing one method to the other when both have shown very obvious flaws isn't the obvious way to go.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Planescape checks past actions more than stats in order to determine dialogue. It's odd that you'd use Deus Ex as an example.

So, it’s odd that I’d use Deus Ex as an example of a system that purely reflects character choices as a means of progression instead of statistics like Intelligence and Charisma... When talking about systems that purely reflect character choices as a means of progression instead of statistics like Intelligence and Charisma?

There's nothing wrong with working within constraints set by the original genre just because the source of those constraints is set by a medium you're not longer working with.

The absence of that specific viewpoint isn’t any indication that I think otherwise.

It's the nothing-short-of-idiotic assertion that one method has become "outdated" simply because its roots lie in another medium.

That’s the “nothing-short-of-idiotic assertion” many fans of traditional cRPGs hold close to them. And that’s the assertion I’m questioning.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Calling them outdated is indicating they are inherently wrong.

Questioning if they're outdated and presenting other methods as a possibility is hardly equivalent of stating they are outdated and that they should go.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@Avu:

I think the concept of Charisma can be left up to a action/reaction system instead of a simple statistic that can be tweaked by the player in a spreadsheet. It does away with the quantification of an attribute that is too broad in scope to narrow down, a quantification which only brings inconsistencies. An example would be how an NPC will be in awe by your presence only after the main character spoke two lines – lines which are the same for every other character, but that are accepted by the NPC because there is a slightly higher value at work behind them.

For instance, you bring up the use of background events in the world as part of a possible way to generate the character. To briefly go on a tangent I enjoy the concept of Traits (Fallout) or Backgrounds (Arcanum) but would prefer if certain aspects were left for players to pursue on their own instead of glacially select a given statistical bonus, penalty and accompanying quirk that would require suspension of disbelief. Because of that, I wouldn’t be much in favor of a Background that taught a language or herbalist skills to a character but would be alright with the ability to learn those during the course of the game – they give a much better sense of achievement and development, and the specifics of the learning can have other applications (such as influencing one’s peers in dialogue or teaching potential followers or pupils).

Charisma as a measure of physical attractiveness... I find it’s as problematic as its current use since it can fall on Arcanum’s trap – higher reactions from NPCs that really don’t add anything worthwhile. And it’s also not a very apt thing to track – the blonde bombshell may get all the attention at a party but she’s going to be the death of it the minute she opens her mouth. I think racial checks are a much more interesting thing to measure in terms of appearance, as they can influence NPCs better (cultural baggage, prejudice, etc.).

You made a solid argument for Intelligence: of course, being able to name the weapon doesn’t guarantee success operating it. The suggestions I made weren’t bulletproof – on the contrary – and that’s a fine dissection and suggestiong for the proposed system.

 

[Human Shield]

Sorry but this was a stupid article. The article boils down to a simplistic one-dimensional view of RPGs that ranks immersion as the highest RPG experience. Suggesting that stats aren't needed because the player can use his own senses is Bethsoft immersion fetish. You keep saying "role playing experience" without defining it, the experience you are looking for is not all possible RPG experiences.

You talk about dialog without talking about what dialog should do. If NPCs are quest dispensers or dialog trees aren't meant to change things of course you don't need stats and writing intelligent dialog to serve the same purpose is pointless.

If the RPG is trying to be a simulation, as many stats and skills that effect dialog the better.
If the RPG is trying to be gamist stats should be used if a debate combat system is used (that is right, running dialog like combat with argument points for health and different attacks).
If the RPG is trying to be narrativist then simulation stats like INT and CHA shouldn't be used but metagame stats are needed and dialog and quests have to be modified to reflect the values the player choose.

You are talking about choices without a coherent feedback system in place which is not RPG design and also makes choices a matter of preference.

"Historically, personality mechanics are used in two ways: (1) as a kind of mental hit points (as in Call of Cthulhu) and (2) as a set of parameters which a character should not stray from without being penalized (alignment in AD&D; psychological disadvantages as in Champions or GURPS). Recently, a lot of games are using them as "pumps" instead of limits, and The Riddle of Steel provides a really solid example of this trend. Wedding this idea to sword-and-sorcery is, in my view, something that role-playing has needed for a very long time.

In other words, the title of the game is not just fluff. It's about what kind of hero you, the player, think is the most important kind.

A character has several Spiritual Attributes, named variously as Faith, Passion, Honor, and similar, and specified by the player. They act as metagame mechanics on any other roll you make, if the Passion or whatever applies to the situation. In other words, fighting some random schmoe uses the plain old combat rules (speed, weapon, etc, etc), but fighting the Six-Fingered Man gets you all sorts of bonuses since your various personality scores are involved."

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/4/

 

[Sovard]

It's not accurate to cite PS:T's lack of this as you're actually a pre-selected character, rather than something you created beforehand. You'll always be the Nameless One, no matter how many times you replay.

Which is irrelevant, since technically it doesn't affect the option of including dumb dialogue.

Well, it is relevant. In my opinion the lack of this actually made PS:T less of an RPG and more of a story heavy adventure game. You didn't create a character/backround/role, and interact with the world around you. You discovered who your character already was.

As for Bloodlines, iirc, dialogue was sometimes influenced by clan rather than stats (but truthfully, I don't think it changed the outcome of the dialogue.) Technically, it was not entirely free of that mechanic.

Statistics had a role in dialogue, and enabled the PCs to charm or threaten others. Clans, in particular, worked much like conditions that gave special dialogue options. Nothing really prevents from actions in a gameworld to do the same.

So... it did have stat influenced dialogue? Then why would you say, "But are games like Planescape: Torment and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines worse role-playing experiences because they did not offer this option?" when clearly you say it does. Hrm, maybe I'm just confused here.

So it almost falls upon the designers to more and more cater to a crowd that doesn't want these enforced influences on their game.

I think designers are in a unique position to reverse that trend, but often prefere not to because they can't or won't design their way out of the mentality that players don't like to be challenged. *snip...*

I agree. The problem is that RPGs have outgrown the niche market they used to be. Now what defines an RPG is something completely different. When it was understood to be a niche market, you could get away with selling 100k games. Now that publishers see the numbers of something like Oblivion, there is little room for niche "throwback" games. Most people see it as an antiquated system. Especially when you see them hailing something as blatantly dumbed down as Oblivion...

It's funny though. STALKER was damn popular for what it was. I think the core value of not treating the player like an idiot (and designing it accordingly) appealed to a number of people that the idea of a "weird Euro FPS" normally wouldn't. The reversal of the trend is happening in the wrong goddamn market.

 

[Joe Krow]

Intellegence should stay. The designers just need to find more interesting ways to integrate it. It's obvious they have done a piss poor job of modeling it into social encounters. Setting that aside (as most game designers already have), even in combat heavy rpgs intellegence could modify anything relating to perception and reaction. A lot of effects that traditional rpgs have attributed to quickness alone have as much to do with quick wits.

Combat could be modified as much by intellegence as strength or dexterity. Smart characters will target their opponents weakest areas which should do more damage while a clod will just swing at random. An intellegent character can anticipate an attack that a dolt would walk right into... a characters defensive statistics could reflect this.

The problem is a lack of creativity.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The article boils down to a simplistic one-dimensional view of RPGs that ranks immersion as the highest RPG experience.

Can you point me to one instance of the article where immersion is brought up?

Suggesting that stats aren't needed because the player can use his own senses is Bethsoft immersion fetish.

So, how is suggesting replacing an incompetent statistical depiction of social attributes for a more organic system of choice and consequence the same as telling people to imagine consequences?

You keep saying "role playing experience" without defining it

I said “role-playing experience” once.

the experience you are looking for is not all possible RPG experiences.

If I’m not defining the experience itself how can you possibly determine it’s not possible?

You talk about dialog without talking about what dialog should do.

Come again?

I think there is a compelling argument for the use of these statistics in traditional cRPG, but it is possible to suggest distinct personalities through dialogue instead of occasional sentences that showcase the value behind the character

let players determine a character's social behaviour during dialogue

If NPCs are quest dispensers or dialog trees aren't meant to change things of course you don't need stats and writing intelligent dialog to serve the same purpose is pointless.

That's right, if.

If the RPG is trying to be a simulation, as many stats and skills that effect dialog the better.(...)

If the RPG is trying to be narrativist then simulation stats like INT and CHA shouldn't be used but metagame stats are needed and dialog and quests have to be modified to reflect the values the player choose.

Those are some interesting concepts. Could you clue me in on their relevance?

You are talking about choices without a coherent feedback system in place which is not RPG design

Define “coherent feedback system”, please.

and also makes choices a matter of preference.

Which is the exact opposite of what they are now, right?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, it is relevant.

I'm saying a predetermined character is irrelevant when determining the inclusion of something like 'dumb dialogue'.

So... it did have stat influenced dialogue? Then why would you say, "But are games like Planescape: Torment and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines worse role-playing experiences because they did not offer this option?" when clearly you say it does.

Because I was talking about a poor Intelligence not presenting 'dumb dialogue', not of other stats defining or influencing dialogue.

I agree. The problem is that RPGs have outgrown the niche market they used to be. Now what defines an RPG is something completely different.

I don't think it means anything anymore - at least for gamers in general. It's become vacant and everyone can have their own interpretation. I blame the death of specialized magazines and the rise of the intardnet, where everyone is an "authority" on the subject.

It's funny though. STALKER was damn popular for what it was. I think the core value of not treating the player like an idiot (and designing it accordingly) appealed to a number of people that the idea of a "weird Euro FPS" normally wouldn't. The reversal of the trend is happening in the wrong goddamn market.

Or maybe people just wanted "Oblivion" (ie. the concept of free roaming, of "going everywhere" and "doing what they please") without those "pesky stats".

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@Joe:

What you're attributing to Intelligence could be attributed to other statistics or worked into special resistances or abilities. Which isn't you're wrong or right - just that it's hardly a case for keeping it. In theory it should stay for reasons we know and have discussed in the past, but when the reasons themselves seem to fail on so many levels...

 

[Human Shield]

Can you point me to one instance of the article where immersion is brought up?

So, how is suggesting replacing an incompetent statistical depiction of social attributes for a more organic system of choice and consequence the same as telling people to imagine consequences?

Organic system and less statistics (abstractions) is an argument for immersion. The organic way your talking about isn't a rule system but having events come back later on, that has nothing to do with RPG design (like how FPS games can do it). RPGs ARE rule systems not branching dialog trees.

I said “role-playing experience” once

And that such and such would help the player "role play" but this wouldn't.

If I’m not defining the experience itself how can you possibly determine it’s not possible?

I didn't say "not possible" I said it wasn't all possible RPG experiences. You don't like it when your character can't act on knowledge you know, some people like that.

You talk about dialog without talking about what dialog should do.

I think there is a compelling argument for the use of these statistics in traditional cRPG, but it is possible to suggest distinct personalities through dialogue instead of occasional sentences that showcase the value behind the character

let players determine a character's social behaviour during dialogue

Alright sorry I missed this. You want the purpose of dialog to just mirror the character personality you want? You want to determine social behavior during dialog instead of at the character sheet why? What does the social behavior do to the game? Would all character builds determine they know high class edicit without spending for it? You don't want dialog to be something that character build gives advantages in?

If NPCs are quest dispensers or dialog trees aren't meant to change things of course you don't need stats and writing intelligent dialog to serve the same purpose is pointless.

That's right, if.

So are you just accepting that "next-gen" RPGs will have worthless NPCs? I not sure I get you.

If the RPG is trying to be a simulation, as many stats and skills that effect dialog the better.(...)

If the RPG is trying to be narrativist then simulation stats like INT and CHA shouldn't be used but metagame stats are needed and dialog and quests have to be modified to reflect the values the player choose.

Those are some interesting concepts. Could you clue me in on their relevance?

The rule system effects the play experience, throwing in junk that is "organic" and has no rule system but is just if statements is not RPG design. Why have stats effect anything, let the player pick what he is good at by letting him do everything.

You are talking about choices without a coherent feedback system in place which is not RPG design.

Define “coherent feedback system”, please.

Create a character good at talking, system rewards good talking, get points to better impact the gameworld, player feels good that character is validated.

Or: Create character good at talking, system makes being good at talking challenging to the player, player feels good defeating stuff with talking.

Or: Create character good at talking, system detects that talking is what the player wants provides challenges in which player is asked if talking is enough, player feels good to have his moral limits tested.

and also makes choices a matter of preference.

Which is the exact opposite of what they are now, right?

It is what they shouldn't be, they should have mechanical impacts.

 

[Sovard]

Well, it is relevant.

I'm saying a predetermined character is irrelevant when determining the inclusion of something like 'dumb dialogue'.

Well, the pre-determined character is pre-determined to not be dumb.

IIRC, there wasn't any starting customization to drop your intelligence or charisma. That's my point with a pre-determined character.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Organic system and less statistics (abstractions) is an argument for immersion.

Because you say so?

The organic way your talking about isn't a rule system but having events come back later on

A “rule system” is any set of rules that govern a system. A game mechanic such as choices and consequences that are determined by player decisions are very much part of one, or can define one.

Either your definition of “rule system” is extremely broad to the point where it’s hopelessly vague or it’s extremely narrow and excludes everything you see fit – making any argument you try to make against mine rather pointless.

that has nothing to do with RPG design

Tracking character actions isn’t part of RPG design? Choices and consequences aren’t part of RPG design?

And that such and such would help the player "role play" but this wouldn't.

Are combinations of probability and modifiers you only have partial control over better better conducing to role-playing than character decisions and consequences you have full control over?

You don't like it when your character can't act on knowledge you know, some people like that.

Appeal to popularity has no bearing on my opinion of how flawed these mechanics are.

You want the purpose of dialog to just mirror the character personality you want?

Among other things in the article, plus the ones I’ve already quoted here in reply to you.

You want to determine social behavior during dialog instead of at the character sheet why?

Why? You always determine social behaviour through dialogue, by deciding how characters conduct themselves in verbal interactions with NPCs.

The only thing you do in a spreadsheet regarding dialogue is to regulate the statistical abstractions of social attributes so the character has better chances of succeeding at a flat stat check that occasionaly suggests some degree of excellence in a given field (such as charismatic or intelligent discourse).

What does the social behavior do to the game?

What do you gain from talking with NPCs and deciding how to act towards (or react towards) them?

Would all character builds determine they know high class edicit without spending for it?

The absence of a blatant Charisma or Intelligence value slapped on some spreadsheet doesn’t mean a measure of awareness isn’t in place.

You don't want dialog to be something that character build gives advantages in?

Oh, I do. I just don't think that reducing “build” down to a set of statistics is necessarily better than letting other means of character diversity and development, or any less effective in giving advantages in dialogue.

So are you just accepting that "next-gen" RPGs will have worthless NPCs? I not sure I get you.

I bolded out “if” because it highlights the problem with assuming things.

The rule system effects the play experience, throwing in junk that is "organic" and has no rule system but is just if statements is not RPG design.

Oh. So RPG design clearly doesn't incorporate this kind of IF statements

If (charname_CHA=12) Then
   (‘NPC_Morlock=”You can pass.”)
Else
   (‘NPC_Morlock=”You can’t pass.”)
End If

right?

Why have stats effect anything, let the player pick what he is good at by letting him do everything.

This is so hysterical it’s not even funny. Are you honestly telling me that after reading my suggestion that two crippled statistics should be removed, you immediately reasoned out that was the equivalent of suggesting letting players control everything? Are you honestly telling me that player skill and decision do not take precedence over everything else in character development, and player intelligence overrides the character’s own INT because it will always be necessary that his reasoning be at the helm?

lawl.

Create a character good at talking, system rewards good talking, get points to better impact the gameworld, player feels good that character is validated.

Or: Create character good at talking, system makes being good at talking challenging to the player, player feels good defeating stuff with talking.

Or: Create character good at talking, system detects that talking is what the player wants provides challenges in which player is asked if talking is enough, player feels good to have his moral limits tested.

Defining a character that’s “good at talking” doesn’t need mental attributes abstracted into numbers. “Good talking”... Is hopelessly vague but I’ll assume you’re talking about something used to determine how well a character can succeed in dialogue, which is also envisioned by my suggestion by virtue of setting up experiences and consequences which will give characters the chance of influencing someone. ”Player feels good” is simply not universally measurable.

Guess what – none of those contradict my suggestions.

It is what they shouldn't be, they should have mechanical impacts.

That... Tells me nothing other than you don’t care to clear up your statement of how RPG design doesn’t make choices a matter of preference.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, the pre-determined character is pre-determined to not be dumb.

IIRC, there wasn't any starting customization to drop your intelligence or charisma. That's my point with a pre-determined character.

Nothing prevented them from implementing said dumb dialogue whether the character was predetermined or not. They could have included it but likely abstained from it due to the development resouces vs. payoff ratio.

 

[spacemoose]

Can you point me to one instance of the article where immersion is brought up?

So, how is suggesting replacing an incompetent statistical depiction of social attributes for a more organic system of choice and consequence the same as telling people to imagine consequences?

Organic system and less statistics (abstractions) is an argument for immersion. The organic way your talking about isn't a rule system but having events come back later on, that has nothing to do with RPG design (like how FPS games can do it). RPGs ARE rule systems not branching dialog trees.

I think we're hitting upon two fundamentally divergent views of where rpgs should be headed here.

branching trees vs. rule systems

the earliest rpgs - roguelikes, daggerfall even, have been rule systems with a world thrown up around them

only recently have we had a hint of the branching tree rpgs - who's main value is exactly in those less formal, much more situation specific branching trees (PST and fallout to a lesser extent)

the end goal of both systems is the same - to provide a simulation of a real world which you can influence.

the natural evolution of the stat-system being an 'emergent world' like GTA on steroids, where things happen semi-randomly, according to a set of rules. many roguelikes have been headed this way.

the natural evolution of the branching-system would be... something like PST, but with more and earlier exclusive branching. handcrafted worlds that rely far less on stats, but on flags you've set in your previous actions

personally, I want more of the branching-tree games. doing away with stats entirely would be silly, but hiding them from the player makes sense - having a life-so-far intro vignette questionnaire determine the initial stats, and from then on rely heavily on flags set through choices (instead of the stats) is the way to go.

I'd rather have a game that had more checks on NPCs' relationships to each other, and my relationship to each one of their particular friends or enemies, with my dialogue choices structured accordingly, than a game in which I get access to different options when speaking to an NPC based on my intelligence stat.

 

[Human Shield]

Organic system and less statistics (abstractions) is an argument for immersion.

Because you say so?

Pay attention to any hype?

A “rule system” is any set of rules that govern a system. A game mechanic such as choices and consequences that are determined by player decisions are very much part of one, or can define one.

Not if it isn't mechanically driven. Choosing from a dialog tree without any statistical impacts is not RPG design (Starcraft 2 is going to have them).

Either your definition of “rule system” is extremely broad to the point where it’s hopelessly vague or it’s extremely narrow and excludes everything you see fit – making any argument you try to make against mine rather pointless.

The way the player interacts with the world that uses reward systems and currency (interactions with risk and reward moderated by player input). The player is using preset rules that could be previously modified, not picking from a list with no costs. Picking to save a kid or not doesn't involve rules (action games can do this choice), if the choice is tried to stats likes values/alignment etc.. the choice is effecting the rules and makes it a deeper decision.

Tracking character actions isn’t part of RPG design? Choices and consequences aren’t part of RPG design?

No it isn't if it isn't done mechanically, that is why action games can track actions and adjust dialog (even play "The Suffering"?).

Are combinations of probability and modifiers you only have partial control over better better conducing to role-playing than character decisions and consequences you have full control over?

If the decisions aren't mechanical yes. D&D combat would be more Role-Playing then dialog trees in Starcraft 2. The only "partial" control is whatever the ruleset uses, you can't assume all RPG rulesets have to be similar.

You don't like it when your character can't act on knowledge you know, some people like that.

Appeal to popularity has no bearing on my opinion of how flawed these mechanics are.

Your opinion has no bearing about how flawed they if they serve their purpose.

Why? You always determine social behaviour through dialogue, by deciding how characters conduct themselves in verbal interactions with NPCs.

The only thing you do in a spreadsheet regarding dialogue is to regulate the statistical abstractions of social attributes so the character has better chances of succeeding at a flat stat check that occasionaly suggests some degree of excellence in a given field (such as charismatic or intelligent discourse).

That is a pretty limited view of RPG design. A social behavior could be given a value and used in play instead of existing only in words and imagination.

What do you gain from talking with NPCs and deciding how to act towards (or react towards) them?

Optimally talking would either aid in exploring the world/effect the world (and to effect the world in a simulated fashion you would variables of success), be a chance to be challenged, or pose mechanically driven moral choices. I don't see much you would get out of trying to have the game reflect your character's personality for its own sake.

The absence of a blatant Charisma or Intelligence value slapped on some spreadsheet doesn’t mean a measure of awareness isn’t in place.

So what are you arguing for, a list of skills instead of CHA and INT that serve the same function?

Oh, I do. I just don't think that reducing “build” down to a set of statistics is necessarily better than letting other means of character diversity and development, or any less effective in giving advantages in dialogue.

Why not have the other means just effect the stat. Giving the player a situation that could raise or lower is CHA (knowing that effects dialog in many locations) makes it a tougher choice then if the situation vaguely impacts a hidden if statement somewhere.

Oh. So RPG design clearly doesn't incorporate this kind of IF statements

If (charname_CHA=12) Then
   (‘NPC_Morlock=”You can pass.”)
Else
   (‘NPC_Morlock=”You can’t pass.”)
End If

right?

Where did the number come from? A ruleset can be greater then the sum of its parts, the currency you spent to be rewarded with a "you can pass" (either XP, fate points, etc...) effects all other areas of play.

This is so hysterical it’s not even funny. Are you honestly telling me that after reading my suggestion that two crippled statistics should be removed, you immediately reasoned out that was the equivalent of suggesting letting players control everything? Are you honestly telling me that player skill and decision do not take precedence over everything else in character development, and player intelligence overrides the character’s own INT because it will always be necessary that his reasoning be at the helm?

I think its funny you even pre-assume CHA and INT are somehow require statistics just because D&D has them and use that to imply that non-mechanical decisions are better because CHA and INT are dumb. Player skill and decision can control any area of the character as long as it is mechanical.

You should start thinking how dialog could use player skill and decisions WITH a ruleset, not cutting it out from RPG design. Combat uses mechanics that can be challenging and uses player input, why not dialog?

Defining a character that’s “good at talking” doesn’t need mental attributes abstracted into numbers. “Good talking”... Is hopelessly vague but I’ll assume you’re talking about something used to determine how well a character can succeed in dialogue, which is also envisioned by my suggestion by virtue of setting up experiences and consequences which will give characters the chance of influencing someone. ”Player feels good” is simply not universally measurable.

Guess what – none of those contradict my suggestions.

Of course it need numbers if you hope to utilize the system as a whole, if you cut off dialog from the system why keep combat?

That... Tells me nothing other than you don’t care to clear up your statement of how RPG design doesn’t make choices a matter of preference.

I differ preferences from decisions based on risk and reward and system. In preferences you don't lose something in a mechanical sense.