Decline Can an RPG be real-time?

[Chanel Oberlin]

Your mom likes it real time.

>tfw people aren't into turn based sex

 

[gurugeorge]

It depends on whether character creation is open-ended or not (and if you think open-ended character creation is an essential aspect of the RPG, then its absence will knock the possibility out).

IOW, it would be possible if you're playing a specific character, or a narrow range of characters, where your player twitch skills, as expressed through the game's systems, can more or less match up with the depicted in-game skills. And in order to avoid being a simple Action-RPG, a realtime RPG would have to rely more heavily on horizontal progression, because whatever in-game skills are directly represented by your twitch skills aren't going to change much in the course of the game, so they're knocked out of the possibility of progression.

Thinking about what in-game skills could be expressed directly via player twitch skills, it would be things like reaction speed, accuracy, etc. Whereas things like strength, constitution, etc., could still be represented abstractly. So the range of character creation options would have to reflect that (maybe, I dunno, you're one of a number of possible inductees into a school for assassins, so you've been born with some of the speed and accuracy necessary, and selected because of that, but other abilities or skills you could develop via abstracted systems - and of course you'd still have the character and temperament you choose, and that would be reflected in dialogue choices, so that side of the RPG would be intact, as it can be in Action-RPGs too).

On the other hand, if you have an open-ended character creation, then you're going to have to do what someone said above, sort of "translate" player skills into the game's systems by upgrading them or downgrading them appropriately - e.g. introduce artificial inaccuracy or wobble when aiming, that kind of thing. Which isn't really very fun.

 

[Dadd]

Can a turn-based RPG be real-time?

 

[Gahbreeil]

If a Role-Playing Game is an RPG only because it is an RPG, well, in that case what is an RPG?

Put D&D in it and it's an RPG, that's my opinion.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

there's 2.5 turn-based games in the top 10 of the codex's top 101

so, I'd assume the answer is 'yes'

 

[WhiteShark]

The moment you allow the player's physical abilities to override or substitute for the character's physical abilities the game ceases to be purely an RPG. We even have a term for this already: Action RPG.

I get the feeling both from this thread and the Disco Elysium one that many people see being an RPG as a badge of honor or a mark of quality, but it's not, it's just a categorization. There's no shame in a game being an Action RPG and I would prefer if people didn't try to lump real-time and turn-based games together under the RPG label because it makes it harder to sort through and find things I want to play.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I get the feeling both from this thread and the Disco Elysium one that many people see being an RPG as a badge of honor or a mark of quality,

it's because RPGs sell and visual novels/action games don't

 

[rusty_shackleford]

games like fallout 3, oblivion, and mass effect changed the video game market forever, it made normies realize they actually like being able to shape the world(to some degree) and having the game react to what they do rather than being told a pretty story with some QTEs inbetween

it's almost impossible to find a game that isn't at least part RPG now, which is why the requirement to be called an RPG should be even more strict

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Can a turn-based RPG be real-time?

Final Fantasy's ATB system

 

[Duraframe300]

Yes and no. Also depends on how rpg-heavy you want the game to actually be. It's much easier, effective and more varied to make character stats matter in turn-based than in real-time and that's partly why turn-based will always be superior from an rpg-perspective.

But again, that depends on what you want to achieve with your game. But in all cases there's one rule that trumps over all others:

Make it good.

 

[Morenatsu.]

games like fallout 3, oblivion, and mass effect changed the video game market forever, it made normies realize they actually like being able to shape the world(to some degree) and having the game react to what they do rather than being told a pretty story with some QTEs inbetween

it's almost impossible to find a game that isn't at least part RPG now, which is why the requirement to be called an RPG should be even more strict

the pretty stories without the QTEs were best. fuq dis fake rpg sheeit

 

[anvi]

It is one of the things I liked the most about EverQuest. It's a deep rpg with dice rolls but it's also real time. I sometimes played it as multiple characters to make my own small group, then it's like a single player RPG. You can use software to automate the other characters or let you switch to them instantly and play multiple characters at the same time. Either way it's awesome and still miles better than the gameplay you can get anywhere else.

I played the same way in two other MMOs and both were similar and really good. But both kinda died, they may return someday.

The nearest comparisons I can think of are Hidden & Dangerous, (which I also love), has a squad of 4 soldiers and you play them all at the same time. If you take over one character the others can be set to follow as AI and help you. Or you can give them basic orders like wait here, or wait for me to engage, etc. And at any time you just press 1-4 and go straight to that character. Each character had a different weapon so you use the sniper at distance and then switch to the machine gunner if anything gets near. And there's a medic, etc. That's what playing EQ as multiple characters is like, but it's an RPG instead of FPS.

It is also kind of like a few RPGs that let you set up rules for your party, like Dragon Age Origins or whatever. You set what to do at % of health for both the character and their target. One of the ways a lot people play EQ is to use a public macro that makes characters act like a real player. So you can run a whole group or even raid by yourself. But it's much deeper and more complex.

 

[gurugeorge]

It is one of the things I liked the most about EverQuest. It's a deep rpg with dice rolls but it's also real time. I sometimes played it as multiple characters to make my own small group, then it's like a single player RPG. You can use software to automate the other characters or let you switch to them instantly and play multiple characters at the same time. Either way it's awesome and still miles better than the gameplay you can get anywhere else.

I played the same way in two other MMOs and both were similar and really good. But both kinda died, they may return someday.

The nearest comparisons I can think of are Hidden & Dangerous, (which I also love), has a squad of 4 soldiers and you play them all at the same time. If you take over one character the others can be set to follow as AI and help you. Or you can give them basic orders like wait here, or wait for me to engage, etc. And at any time you just press 1-4 and go straight to that character. Each character had a different weapon so you use the sniper at distance and then switch to the machine gunner if anything gets near. And there's a medic, etc. That's what playing EQ as multiple characters is like, but it's an RPG instead of FPS.

It is also kind of like a few RPGs that let you set up rules for your party, like Dragon Age Origins or whatever. You set what to do at % of health for both the character and their target. One of the ways a lot people play EQ is to use a public macro that makes characters act like a real player. So you can run a whole group or even raid by yourself. But it's much deeper and more complex.

Yeah, it's true that some of the early MMOS were in fact basically real-time RPGs.

Man, Hidden & Dangerous was a great game (though hella buggy if I recall). I remember thinking at the time that the first Medal of Honour/Battlefield games that appeared in the next year or two were basically cheap ripoffs with crappier gameplay.

 

[Victor1234]

It is one of the things I liked the most about EverQuest. It's a deep rpg with dice rolls but it's also real time. I sometimes played it as multiple characters to make my own small group, then it's like a single player RPG. You can use software to automate the other characters or let you switch to them instantly and play multiple characters at the same time. Either way it's awesome and still miles better than the gameplay you can get anywhere else.

I played the same way in two other MMOs and both were similar and really good. But both kinda died, they may return someday.

The nearest comparisons I can think of are Hidden & Dangerous, (which I also love), has a squad of 4 soldiers and you play them all at the same time. If you take over one character the others can be set to follow as AI and help you. Or you can give them basic orders like wait here, or wait for me to engage, etc. And at any time you just press 1-4 and go straight to that character. Each character had a different weapon so you use the sniper at distance and then switch to the machine gunner if anything gets near. And there's a medic, etc. That's what playing EQ as multiple characters is like, but it's an RPG instead of FPS.

It is also kind of like a few RPGs that let you set up rules for your party, like Dragon Age Origins or whatever. You set what to do at % of health for both the character and their target. One of the ways a lot people play EQ is to use a public macro that makes characters act like a real player. So you can run a whole group or even raid by yourself. But it's much deeper and more complex.

Yeah, it's true that some of the early MMOS were in fact basically real-time RPGs.

Man, Hidden & Dangerous was a great game (though hella buggy if I recall). I remember thinking at the time that the first Medal of Honour/Battlefield games that appeared in the next year or two were basically cheap ripoffs with crappier gameplay.

Yes! Invisible hole in the ground that your guy falls through and instantly dies. Not good, but damn was it great overall. I haven't seen the system of playing the squad at the same time used elsewhere since as seamlessly, even if games like ARMA make it technically possible (mission maker has to pre-select every soldier that should be playable, then you switch in via a complex menu).

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Five years after Dungeon Master established the first major real-time CRPG subgenre, the second one was established by Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss. Breaking free of a grid and moving into a 3D environment (though still relying heavily on 2D sprites), this type of game was soon followed by Blue Sky Productions Looking Glass Studios itself with the sequel Ultima Underworld II: The Labyrinth of Worlds, while an Amiga-based sports-game-developer called Bethesda Softworks quickly followed suit with its own innovations in The Elder Scrolls Arena and TES II: Daggerfall, among various other games in this subgenre.

 

[KainenMorden]

Geralt actually has a history with past acquaintances who know him personally, and has a reputation that precedes him. Not so with every Elderscrolls game for instance; where the PC might as well have fallen out of the sky one night, a full grown infant with no past, and lacking the skills to reach their current age.

Honestly curious, do you prefer playing the role of a character that you can't customize at all who already has an established history and somewhat of a personality vs a blank slate character that you can make your own?

I've never played any Witcher games to know what roleplaying options are available but I imagine you must have some control over what decisions the character makes.

I'd still rather create my own character but to each his own.

 

[gurugeorge]

Five years after Dungeon Master established the first major real-time CRPG subgenre, the second one was established by Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss. Breaking free of a grid and moving into a 3D environment (though still relying heavily on 2D sprites), this type of game was soon followed by Blue Sky Productions Looking Glass Studios itself with the sequel Ultima Underworld II: The Labyrinth of Worlds, while an Amiga-based sports-game-developer called Bethesda Softworks quickly followed suit with its own innovations in The Elder Scrolls Arena and TES II: Daggerfall, among various other games in this subgenre.

It's interesting that the "Goddammit I'm HITTING the beast, look, why isn't it having any effect?" syndrome didn't bother early adopters of these games (because they understood what was going on). But IIRC it really bothered the newer influx of players in Morrowind, the first of these types of RPGs that really crossed over big, who thought it was just goofy that you were obviously hitting things according to the graphics, yet still missing. (Same with the Deus Ex whiffing roundabout the same time.)

And thus the Action RPG was born

It is a bit of an awkward marriage in terms of abilities like accuracy, though most of the other types of stats can happily be abstracted. So long as the graphics were lowfi enough, it didn't matter, but as soon as more realism started to be introduced into the graphics, more realism was demanded in the responsiveness.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

If its mechanics and controls are designed explicitly for real time gameplay. Not any of that Bioware/Owlcat stuff.

 

[Glop_dweller]

Honestly curious, do you prefer playing the role of a character that you can't customize at all who already has an established history and somewhat of a personality vs a blank slate character that you can make your own?
I've never played any Witcher games to know what roleplaying options are available but I imagine you must have some control over what decisions the character makes.
I'd still rather create my own character but to each his own.

No preference, so long as there is an understandable character role. I don't hold user defined characters to be a requirement of RPGs; the point is to play that role in those situations. I'd play Papillon [the RPG] if there was one.

Planescape has a fixed protagonist —essentially an immortal (male) schizophrenic who has to deal with a lot of shady embarrassing, and shameful baggage from his past personalities; with many of the people he's hurt still living, and remembering him. Both Witcher and Planescape employ the overused trope of the amnesiac protagonist (to allow a mutable character). Geralt and The Nameless both slowly recall their former abilities over time.

If the game offers a customizable PC then I will make one, but if it doesn't, I don't think twice about it, and will use the character(s) provided.

I will mention that if the PC is a known personality (as opposed to a player's custom PC), then the developers can weave an intricate backstory with their PC in mind, and have far more specific (and less generic) interactions with their NPCs.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

RPGs aren't real.

Hmmmmmm......

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I’m not a big fan of RPGs to be honest, turn base and real time are kind of gay. I’ll talk about them for 20 plus years but won’t play much of them. Is this normal?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

If a Role-Playing Game is an RPG only because it is an RPG, well, in that case what is an RPG?

Put D&D in it and it's an RPG, that's my opinion.

 

[Goldschmidt]

Denying real-time rpgs is like homos denying heterosexuals.

 

[Vic]

The most popular RPGs are real-time.

 

[Butter]

The most popular RPGs are real-time.

But the best ones will always be visual novels.