Like most of the Codex lately, this thread reeks of dumbfuckery. The few individuals not in dire need of being smitten with Cluebringer +3, +5 against stupid who have posted here, sadly, can't change that.
First things first - computer games, including cRPGs, use numbers in two ways:
First is their internal mechanics - the numbers are being ground to make the gameworld behave properly and react to player's input.
Second is player-game interface.
Apart from PnP emulators and some dungeon-crawls with their tables filled with delicious math-pr0n, those two parts are or can be completely separated from each other.
This is where cries of "simplificashun!1" emitted by the noticeably confused part of the Codex fall flat on their face:
The issue here is not simplification of the rules somehow caused by moving them from dashboard under the hood - the actual number grinding is way more intense and complex in those new games.
The issue here is not the immersion, as much as we hate it's use as a buzzword meaning roughly "more bloom and outrageous hardware requirements".
The issue here is retard proofing facilitated by simplification of RPG mechanics
that is being kept separate from the underlying, under the hood mechanics of the game.
It would, most certainly, be possible to retard-proof Fallout without adding even a touch of "immershun" and let me assure, the result, despite it's old-school look, would be no less of a horrible monstrosity than most modern so-called cRPGs are.
Hell, setting aside the fact that it was the first IE game produced, BG1 looks exactly like bethesdified (though mostly in story/setting layer) version of PS:T (quite a horrid sight, to be frank), even though it's noticeably deprived of "immershun", even compared to PS:T.
Having concluded, that that moving numbers under the hood isn't causally related with dumbing down, we need to ask whether moving them under the hood is beneficial, and how to accomplish that.
The benefits of moving the numbers under the hood are threefold:
First, it allows for more complex mechanics. Yes, you've read it right - not "dumbing down" but rather a potential for "smarting up". In PnP RPGs the numbers had to be human-manageable - this is a simple, indisputable fact. This led to a great deal of simplification and very abstracted gameplay. The computing power offered by modern machine, as well as the divorce of number-grinding and human interface offers some cool new opportunities. For example, everything, from to-hit chances, to weapon damage in PnP games was determined by die rolls and a bunch of tables, now, how about replacing it with fairly accurate and detailed simulation of combat using game's physical engine? A bunch of nerds with die, tables and character sheets couldn't handle the math involved, but your computer can. Of course there are some pitfalls here, for example, character's skill, whether it's quantifiable, determined by a list of abilities, or some of both, has to be simulated, rather than abstracted as well, else you'll get Oblivion, but you'll have to admit that an RPG relying on physical engine rather than tables for most of the stuff, including combat, can be quite appealing. Not only would it add a lot of detail to the game - for example weapons and armour with similar numerical representations in a PnP game could be very different in such physical RPGs, with all their pointy bits and materials actually modelled - it would also greatly increase the interactivity of the environment - rather than relying on scripted solution the game will allow you to simply do stuff effectively limited only by your creativity and inventiveness. Time saved on meticulously scripting every solution player may try might be spent on polishing the character's, their interactivity and dialogue - the parts that can't be simulated adequately, apart from simple combat AI and pathfinding.
Second lets this mechanics be tightly integrated with game's engine - slapping an RPG on top of, for example, FPS, while workable, isn't exactly what you'd call an elegant solution and hardly a seamless experience. WYSIWYG mechanics of our hypothetical integrated cRPG looks much more appealing. It would also save the player much confusion "In real life I'd <do_this_and_this>, but this is only a game so I probably can't and have to do <another_thing>..." - once he got a hang of this WYSIWYG mechanics.
Third, it would help immersion. Yes, I'll go there. As much as I'd love, for example Wizardry 9, as much as I had fun with screens filled with delightful number-pr0n in some games, I can't help but say: numbers are unimmersive. Now, they are hundreds of orders of magnitude less unimmersive than shoddy world building, retarded dialogue and characters, excessive level scaling, gaping plot-holes and other plagues of game design, but they are still the antagonists here. Of course, some subgenres, namely PnP emulators and retro dungeon-crawls simply have to pay the price as numbers are their lifeblood and depriving RPG gamers of those, potentially insanely fun games would be wrong, but other cRPGs can do without numbers.
If you're still not convinced about the unimmersiveness of the numbers imagine a novel. This novel is available in two versions - one is written 'normally', the other one makes copious references to +1 weapons, to hit rolls and hit points. Which of those would you rather read and which would you consider more immersive (as in "allowing for more suspension of disbelief")?
Of course, as the interface of a cRPG game is largely made of numbers, it would require dramatic re-design, but it's hardly a caveat here - there plenty of ways to convey information, and when "show, don't tell" fails there is always text. While lacking bloom and other features buzzword-mongers would like you to believe are necessary for immersion, text is actually quite an immersive medium if judged by it's potential for inducing suspension of disbelief (as many an avid reader would testify), it also has a long tradition of being effectively employed in cRPGs. What game can't show directly (for example how well balanced is the sword your character is holding) it can describe. Descriptions can vary in level of detail according to character's abilities. For full effect, audio-visual representations can be varied as well. For example, thanks for the ingenious invention known as decal textures it'd be possible to hide tell-tale blood spots on the ground or severe wear marks on his "new sword in pristine condition" from an unperceptive character. The possibilities are endless!
P.S. I haven't read the article because I couldn't be arsed. Nyah!
P.S.2. The second page seems mostly devoid of "waaah! simplificashun1!" whiners, kudos for that.
)
