Do you believe in the concept of "system bloat" in RPGs?

[Faarbaute]

There are systems I don't care for in any RPGs, even when they're executed in a competent manner. Mostly stuff that veer into the territory of other genres but also systems that undermine each other or make each other redundant in some very obvious fashion.

Any one of these systems, if it takes a large enough focus away from the "main course" of the game so to speak, would be fair to call system bloat, IMO.

EDIT: I also believe it matters a lot what your game is marketed as and what the player's expectations are.

 

[Riddler]

Beyond the stuff with systems interfering with each other or the core gameplay loop I'd argue that a situation where there are enough systems to make it unclear how they interact could constitute feature bloat depending on the genre.

In a simulationist game like Rimworld or Dwarf fortress this can be an asset but in games where you want more control over what's happening like In an RTS, FPS or an RPG it becomes a problem, not the least because it becomes impossible to balance for the developer.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What the average codexer thinks is VERY IMPORTANT for an RPG:

What the average codexer thinks has no place in an RPG:

 

[Fedora Master]

Patiently waiting for a video game adaptation of rolemaster so half this forum dies of an aneurysm.

Has there ever been a RIFTS Crpg?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Patiently waiting for a video game adaptation of rolemaster so half this forum dies of an aneurysm.

Has there ever been a RIFTS Crpg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts:_Promise_of_Power

 

[Fedora Master]

Patiently waiting for a video game adaptation of rolemaster so half this forum dies of an aneurysm.

Has there ever been a RIFTS Crpg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts:_Promise_of_Power

N-Gage

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

There cannot be system bloat per se in an RPG. If you imagine the IDEAL rpg, then it will certainly simulate pretty much every system known to man (ie be Dwarf Fortress). Why wouldn't you want to engage in more systems?

The problem is that of resources and talent. RPG developers are notorious for being bad at designing systems (hence RPG combat is typically worse than other genres, RPG puzzles are worse, RPG base building, etc). And because it's an RPG, they can't just focus on systems like say a survival game developer, they need to come up with a lot of other stuff. So with limited talent and resources, if you introduce a lot of systems into your game that you have no chance in hell of making good, then why do it?

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Comparing CRPGs and Tabletop is invalid with few exceptions*. Both Zork and Wizardry were attempts to mimic the experience of PnP role playing with wildly different outcomes, leading to two different genres (Adventure games and CRPGs). No one complains about adventure games not matching tabletop.

*The obvious exception is stuff like Pathfinder which claims to be an accurate representation of PnP (which it isn't, but nevermind.)

In any case, one kind of system bloat I approve of is what I call 'improvement vectors.' I enjoy when an RPG has more than just experience levels and equipment for advancement. Give me classes to unlock, secret skills to learn from equipment, magic widgets to power up and combine, etc. The same old level up, assign perk/skills, and equip gear has been done to death.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Most games, not just RPGs, have some sort of gameplay bloat, usually based on tradition or bad design.

This usually happens when multiple gameplay systems are created to facilitate the same gameplay purpose

For instance, Doom Eternal has 2 separate systems to counteract the "just use the Gauss all the time" problem in Doom 2016. It introduced an enemy weak spot system which encouraged you to use different weapons without forcing it, and rewarded creative players who prioritised certain targets at certain ranges. That's good. They also capped all the ammo amounts towards the same goal, a decision which many people (myself included) absolutely despised because it felt artificial, was a very binary system (no encouragement or strategy, just a case of "lol swap weapon now"), and is generally a very hacky and heavy-handed solution. I would call this system bloat because it's not really fixing anything that wasn't already fixed, and just makes the gameplay tangibly worse in a number of ways.

Any mechanic that exists that doesn't fulfill a purpose, or fulfills the same purpose as another mechanic, is superfluous, unless there's something specific about that mechanic to differentiate it from others for a very specific design goal.

Modern AAA games are plagued with superfluous mechanics that just add busywork. Enemies dropping ammo was replaced with crafting systems, with enemies dropping "ingredients". Why? What purpose does that serve? One could argue that theoretically this gives the player more choice as they can use their resources on other things, but realistically the only things ever worth crafting in these games are medical kits and ammo, both of which could easily be dropped by enemies. It's a whole extra system that requires it's own scripting, menu system, art, etc, and accomplishes almost nothing. But they HAVE to add crafting because it's what every other AAA game has and the executives need to check a box.

I am not against crafting systems. They can add a lot to a game if done right. But they are so easy to fuck up.

 

[Alex]

"RPG" is not a genre, at least in the way that adventure or strategy are a genre. A particular campaign could center around various different gameplay ideas. It could be centered around building and keeping a base, around exploring the world in a ship, making sure you have the supplies necessary to keep going, around investigating the action of evil cultists, etc. The small scale tactical combat is not any more inherent of RPGs than any of these others.

 

[mondblut]

If this actually were the case, we would have had some sort of Spellforce Fallout hybrid, in which Settlement building would have played a way greater role than it currently does in Fallout 4. And I am not playing Fallout because I want to do that shit. It's the same with Kingsmaker. I am not even in the slightest way interested in playing the game because of the kingdom management aspect, even though the game (combat and party gameplay) looks about right.

Truly sad that not every game in existence caters to your exquisite tastes. Perhaps you should speak to their manager.

 

[mondblut]

A particular campaign could center around various different gameplay ideas. It could be centered around building and keeping a base, around exploring the world in a ship, making sure you have the supplies necessary to keep going, around investigating the action of evil cultists, etc.

Yes.

The small scale tactical combat is not any more inherent of RPGs than any of these others.

No.

All of the scenarios above sooner or later end up in meeting someone hostile, at which point it becomes centered around small scale tactical combat.

 

[Alex]

(...)
All of the scenarios above sooner or later end up in meeting someone hostile, at which point it becomes centered around small scale tactical combat.

Not necessarily. The ship campaign might turn to naval combat instead (with the different characters affecting actions according to their abilities). The game focusing around a keep might turn to large scale tactics instead. The investigation game might, depending on the situation, just end because there is no point trying to fight the kind of entities you are trying to stop.

Mind you, I don't disagree that small scale tactics might be something you want in an RPG. RPGs are centred around single characters, and almost always involve adventurous, dangerous situations. As such, small scale combat is something quite normal in these games; and tactical gameplay is the best fit to represent it. But the association is accidental rather than inherent. You can take the exact same combat rules of an RPG but make a board game without RPG elements out of it instead. And you can make an RPG where small scale combat is not resolved by tactical gameplay (for instance, you might just make a compared skill roll, for a game where single combat is not supposed to matter much).

My point then is that there is not some gameplay aspect that is essential to RPGs, and as such, dismissing the idea out of hand of focusing or enabling a different kind of gameplay doesn't really make sense. An RPG where you basically play a 4x game with the game world is not less of an RPG because of it, as long as the PCs have control over things they would have given their characters and as long as the game doesn't restrict actions only to a set of pre-defined ones, like a board game.

 

[mondblut]

Not necessarily. The ship campaign might turn to naval combat instead (with the different characters affecting actions according to their abilities).

...and eventually ships collide and boarding action begins. Bring in small scale tactical combat.

The game focusing around a keep might turn to large scale tactics instead.

...and then enemies send a small group to infiltrate instead of bringing an army with catapults. Bring in small scale tactical combat.

The investigation game might, depending on the situation, just end because there is no point trying to fight the kind of entities you are trying to stop.

Entities yes, their minions, not quite. Bring in small scale tactical combat.

But the association is accidental rather than inherent.

No.

You can take the exact same combat rules of an RPG but make a board game without RPG elements out of it instead.

Why invent the wheel when a board game without RPG elements and with the exact same combat rules is what spawned RPGs to begin with?

And you can make an RPG where small scale combat is not resolved by tactical gameplay (for instance, you might just make a compared skill roll, for a game where single combat is not supposed to matter much).

You can make any kind of game that has next to nothing in common with RPGs and call it an RPG. Question is, how many people will you make to agree with you.

My point then is that there is not some gameplay aspect that is essential to RPGs

If it plays like D&D, it's an RPG. If it doesn't, chances are, it's probably not.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Traveller, the grand-daddy of RPGs next to D&D, is all about traveling with your "stronghold", anti-strongholdcucks just can't win

 

[Dadd]

Traveller, the grand-daddy of RPGs next to D&D, is all about traveling with your "stronghold", anti-strongholdcucks just can't win

 

[luj1]

There are systems I don't care for in any RPGs, even when they're executed in a competent manner.

exactly

 

[rusty_shackleford]

There are systems I don't care for in any RPGs, even when they're executed in a competent manner.

exactly

You not liking an important part of RPGs does not make them bloat.

 

[luj1]

It's bloat depending on how it was implemented. If it detracts from the core gameplay then yes. If it's a side dish then no. Tabletop implementation is closer to the latter, i.e. being a side dish. Strongholds are a part of tabletop, but not a major part of the vast, vast majority of tabletop. This is your fantasy.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's bloat depending on how it was implemented. If it detracts from the core gameplay then yes. If it's a side dish then no.

strongholds, which you consider to be bloat, are a core mechanic of RPGs and have been since they were first created.
Just admit you don't actually like RPGs. You like popamole sims with "RPG elements"

 

[luj1]

Mate, you like Fallout 76 and Todd Howard. This is widely known on this forum. You are literally a consoletard trying to lecture others about RPGs.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Mate, you like Fallout 76 and Todd Howard. This is widely known on this forum. You are literally a consoletard trying to lecture others about RPGs.

You have no counter-argument for the fact based assertion that you only pick and choose what part of RPGs you like then accuse the rest of being 'bloat' despite it being there before you were even a twinkle in your father's eye.

You are the decline, you are the popamoler.

 

[luj1]

Every morning when you get up from bed, you may repeat to yourself "I am Peter Pan". You can do this a thousand times, but it won't make you Peter Pan. In fact, you are an aging shell of a man with rapidly declining taste, seduced by consoles. You can dig out as many tabletop rulebooks as you like, you cannot make yourself into something you are not. Your cover was blown. You like realtime combat and explosions. You lecturing anyone on RPGs and RPG genealogy is like a prostitute with STDs driving around public schools and giving lectures on merits of family life.

 

[Vic]

It's bloat depending on how it was implemented. If it detracts from the core gameplay then yes. If it's a side dish then no.

This goes hand in hand with how well-developed a system is. I don't think you can have two well-developed, deep systems in a game that don't have great synergy together, ie don't detract from one another. In GTA you have shooting and driving, but both work well together, and combined make up the core gameplay loop.

Dwarf Fortress is insane in what it simulates, if you don't know, look it up, it's truly mind boggling. But all those systems work together to create a satisfying core gameplay loop, which is base building. I aven't played much of adventure mode, so not sure about that.

IF the stronghold system was truly deep in Pathfinder, it would be much more intertwined with the core gameplay, but it isn't. You could remove it completely and it wouldn't really change the core gameplay loop.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Every morning when you get up from bed, you may repeat to yourself "I am Peter Pan". You can do this a thousand times, but it won't make you Peter Pan. In fact, you are an aging shell of a man with rapidly declining taste, seduced by consoles. You can dig out as many tabletop rulebooks as you like, you cannot make yourself into something you are not. Your cover was blown. You like realtime combat and explosions. You lecturing anyone on RPGs and RPG genealogy is like a prostitute with STDs driving around public schools and giving lectures on merits of family life.

Absolutely seething over the fact that strongholds are a core part of RPGs and always have been.