Interview inXile's Torment successor officially announced on RPS, will use Monte Cook's Numenera setting

[Alex]

mondblut

I kinda see your point, Mondblut. I think one of the biggest problems we have with CRPGs is that it is really expensive to make generic systems for all the kinds of interactions you want in the game. Most games have combat as their only open system (and sometimes, it isn't even all that open). Anything else is usually a scripted "puzzle". So, I guess I can see why you care mostly about combat.

Still, I think we can do a bit better even while using puzzles. I mean, some puzzle situations are obvious (which doesn't feel like a game at all), while others are simply a matter of trial and error (which is just frustrating). Some puzzles are just a question of following specific steps, with your character attributes affecting nothing, and any deviation from the series of steps adding nothing and changing nothing.

What I am trying to say is that while well made open systems are always more desirable, I think you can make "puzzle" based gameplay more fun if it isn't so "puzzly", if that makes sense.If puzzles are more open, if you have a range of options on how to deal with things, if hints are actual hints, rather than complete mysteries or blatant rubbing of answers on your face, I think the quality of this kind of thing can be much better. I guess what I am trying to say is that CRPG puzzles should be a bit more like Maniac Mansion ones, or maybe like Neuromancer's (though with a lot more options, rather than the fixed path the game ends up forcing you to follow).

 

[Grunker]

and sometimes, it isn't even all that open

Sidenote: One of the biggest travesties of many RPGs. I still can't get myself to trudge through all of Frayed Knights, simply because I'm so pissed off it forces me to pick in the blind. Choosing between different options and styles isn't that compelling when all you have are names and vague hints. Even when you know what stuff does (two-weapon fighting) you have no idea what two-weapon fighting entails in the system. Extra attacks? Penalties? How many and which are they?

 

[mondblut]

Chainmail is not representative of wargames, but a computer RTS is. Sure thing, mate.

It doesn't represent the majority of the genre. It's certainly not representative of any wargames I've ever played.

Such as command & conquer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_to_Man_wargames

Enjoy.

You don't find ladies over 35 attractive? Then you probably are a faggot, no offense.

Next you'll be saying one is a faggot on the grounds of not finding ladies over 150 pounds attractive

Other than that, sure, if you specifically dislike games with clear objectives, you ultimately dislike being challenged or engaged, so you'd probably feel more at home with a hiking simulator. You certainly shouldn't be playing wargames.

That's why I play RPGs instead - the kind of wargames where I am free to turn my back to a battle whose conditions I do not approve, and seek my entertainment elsewhere.

Hiking simulators are perfectly fine in my book. ARPGs aren't.

I killed Baphomet though.

That's cool, but what for?

Bethesda's, in case you forgot, always have Baphomets of their own, too. It's just that few people are particularly obsessed about meeting them.

Wargames are bastard children of chess, sharing the same basic rulesets and mentality.

Just like humanity is bastard children of apes, yeah, sharing the same skeletal structure.

 

[mondblut]

Does the fact I don't find ladies over 35 attractive mean I am after boys below 10, by your logic?

No, it implies you're either pretty young, or... a bit of a weirdo, actually.

That tranny thing is so 2009, nowadays Codex is all about gerontophiliacs

 

[St. Toxic]

Such as command & conquer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_to_Man_wargames

Enjoy.

30 titles all made in the last 30 years. Meanwhile wargames have a 300 year old pedigree. What is this nonsense?

Next you'll be saying one is a faggot on the grounds of not finding ladies over 150 pounds attractive

150 pounds is the bare minimum if you want a tall and healthy specimen.

That's why I play RPGs instead - the kind of wargames where I am free to turn my back to a battle whose conditions I do not approve, and seek my entertainment elsewhere.

I.e not wargames.

Hiking simulators are perfectly fine in my book. ARPGs aren't.

That's just the combat though.

That's cool, but what for?

Bethesda's, in case you forgot, always have Baphomets of their own, too. It's just that few people are particularly obsessed about meeting them.

Right, because they're not particularly interesting. Linear and generic plots take a secondary role to strutting around in the forest like FAGS and LARPING.

Just like humanity is bastard children of apes, yeah, sharing the same skeletal structure.

Well, more than that, but if you like.

 

[mondblut]

30 titles all made in the last 30 years.

And preceding the so-called "roleplaying games" by just a couple of years. What a coincidence.

Meanwhile wargames have a 300 year old pedigree.

Bullshit. Monocled gentlemen ordering their manservants to arrange their collection of miniatures around the lawn are no closer to wargaming as a gaming genre than their ancestral plate armors placed in the lobbies of their manors are to larping. Hint: for something to become a "genre", it has to have sufficient exposure.

Wargames as something a man from the street could purchase and play began around 1950s. Took them only 20 years to zoom the scale to individual soldiers.

150 pounds is the bare minimum if you want a tall and healthy specimen.

I rest my case. Enjoy your geriatric whales

That's why I play RPGs instead - the kind of wargames where I am free to turn my back to a battle whose conditions I do not approve, and seek my entertainment elsewhere.

I.e not wargames.

I.e. wargames gone open-ended and eventually called "role-playing games".

Hiking simulators are perfectly fine in my book. ARPGs aren't.

That's just the combat though.

As if there is anything else.

Bethesda's, in case you forgot, always have Baphomets of their own, too. It's just that few people are particularly obsessed about meeting them.

Right, because they're not particularly interesting.

No, because they're not the point.

Like the baphomets of handholding rollercoasters are anywhere near interesting. Lawl.

 

[Alex_Steel]

mondblut is just a sad little panda because almost no one gave a shit about man-to-man wargames (not even Gygax who changed his own game to a role-playing one), while role-playing games received all the attention and goodies. Now he desperately gives a fuck about make-believe "RPGs are man-to-man wargames" bullshit, because the first DnD was one (and thus, all DnDs are despite the clear change of direction written in the editorials). Don't worry dude, you can always go emo.

 

[Alex]

Eh, he has a very good point in this thread, I think. While I am willing to work with puzzles, I can see how having to solve a situation in a specific way someone (either a GM or a game designer) thought up can be crappy gameplay. And if you look at some of the early RPGs, specially early TSR stuff, there is certainly a feeling of open ended wargames. Take a look at Gamma World if you want an example of that. More recently, Carcosa does this feeling pretty well too (by the way, mondblut, have you checked out Carcosa? Seems like your cup of tea).

Now, of course these games always fostered creativity too. It is not about just checking the odds of a battle and following through. You tried to use everything to your advantage, the terrain, monster weaknesses, traps avoided in the dungeon,and maybe reconfigured, etc. When well done, even mystery games could be open ended. Rather than having to find the next clue to continue,the game just went along with your actions. If you missed a hint in a crime scene, the game didn't just stop. Instead, it skipped along to the next murder. Do a good job, and you can save a lot of people. Do a bad one, or just ignore the problem (after all, there are probably other things going on too) and th serial killer will just move on, or the cultist will move on to the next part of the plan, etc.

 

[ghostdog]

 

[Surf Solar]

 

[St. Toxic]

And preceding the so-called "roleplaying games" by just a couple of years. What a coincidence.

No coincidence here. Much like an fps with roleplaying elements isn't a crpg, a wargame with roleplaying elements isn't a roleplaying game. Making the even longer leap that crpg's, which are a distinct genre from p&p rpg's, are the same as wargames, because p&p rpg elements first made their debut in wargames, simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Bullshit. Monocled gentlemen ordering their manservants to arrange their collection of miniatures around the lawn are no closer to wargaming as a gaming genre than their ancestral plate armors placed in the lobbies of their manors are to larping. Hint: for something to become a "genre", it has to have sufficient exposure.

Oh, I see. So which mainstream console title would you say started the crpg genre? Legend of Zelda? Final Fantasy? Oblivion?

Wargames as something a man from the street could purchase and play began around 1950s. Took them only 20 years to zoom the scale to individual soldiers.

Why don't you try out Men of War/Faces of War? I mean, that's a wargame with focus on individual units, yet an actual strategy game rather than a crpg.

I rest my case. Enjoy your geriatric whales

Enjoy fucking midget skeletons, I guess.

I.e. wargames gone open-ended and eventually called "role-playing games".

So called because they have nothing in common with wargames.

As if there is anything else.

But you just said you wanted hiking simulators. That's not combat.

No, because they're not the point.

Then why would they be in there in the first place? We're talking about bad writing and systems geeks trying to make the best of it.

Like the baphomets of handholding rollercoasters are anywhere near interesting. Lawl.

Like reading a book is anywhere near interesting. Lawl. HAY LOOK A BUTTERFLY

 

[mondblut]

No coincidence here. Much like an fps with roleplaying elements isn't a crpg, a wargame with roleplaying elements isn't a roleplaying game.

Of course, particularly since there were no roleplaying games to borrow "roleplaying elements" from to begin with.

Making the even longer leap that crpg's, which are a distinct genre from p&p rpg's, are the same as wargames, because p&p rpg elements first made their debut in wargames, simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

A crpg - as in, a "computer RPG" - is ought to be a computer simulation of p&p experience, as far as I am concerned.

Oh, I see. So which mainstream console title would you say started the crpg genre? Legend of Zelda? Final Fantasy? Oblivion?

Wizardry 1, Ultima 1 and even Rogue had sufficient exposure and were recognized as originators of a genre being borne from day 1.

Coincidentally, far less people are aware of the 70s mainframe games preceding them, let alone of that perfect D&D implementation John Doe made on his Apple I back in 1974 and never shown to anyone except his 2 friends. What, you never heard of it? Boo-hoo, neither did I.

Another issue you conveniently chose to ignore is that the "small unit tactics" themselves is a child of WW2, of the commandos employed and general vast increase of individual firepower (and its subsequent specialization). There was no small unit tactics even in WW1, when a platoon meant nothing more than one quarter of a company only able to fire one quarter of a company's worth of rifle bullets in a unit of time. Individual soldier didn't matter in a line of identically trained and armed riflemen. It took WW2 special forces getting into the spotlight of mainstream (Guns of Navarrone say hi), along with modern combined arms approach, to add tactics into the management of a squad of soldiers. The gentlemen playing napoleonic mass warfare on their lawns were simply not aware there may be some distinctions between the units smaller than a regiment.

Why don't you try out Men of War/Faces of War? I mean, that's a wargame with focus on individual units, yet an actual strategy game rather than a crpg.

They are probably some railroaded mission-based crap? I'd rather play good RPGs like JA2 or Brigade E5

But you just said you wanted hiking simulators. That's not combat.

And one excludes another since when?

Then why would they be in there in the first place?

Because railroadfags need some clutches so they can view their endgame cutscene and move on with a sense of accomplishment?

Like reading a book is anywhere near interesting. Lawl. HAY LOOK A BUTTERFLY

Drinking and wenching beats any kind of story, true.

 

[Kirtai]

A crpg - as in, a "computer RPG" - is ought to be a computer simulation of p&p experience, as far as I am concerned.

That reminds me of how early TV and cinema was essentially pre-recorded plays.

 

[Alex]

A crpg - as in, a "computer RPG" - is ought to be a computer simulation of p&p experience, as far as I am concerned.

That reminds me of how early TV and cinema was essentially pre-recorded plays.

Me too. I mean, why the hell are CRPGs moving away from their P&P roots and becoming more like pre-recorded movies? The idea just boggles my mind.

 

[St. Toxic]

Of course, particularly since there were no roleplaying games to borrow "roleplaying elements" from to begin with.

So, here's a picture of a wheel:

A crpg - as in, a "computer RPG" - is ought to be a computer simulation of p&p experience, as far as I am concerned.

How about listing the components that such a simulation requires?

Wizardry 1, Ultima 1 and even Rogue had sufficient exposure and were recognized as originators of a genre being borne from day 1.

Sufficient for what purpose? To fit your definition?

Coincidentally, far less people are aware of the 70s mainframe games preceding them, let alone of that perfect D&D implementation John Doe made on his Apple I back in 1974 and never shown to anyone except his 2 friends. What, you never heard of it? Boo-hoo, neither did I.

Another issue you conveniently chose to ignore is that the "small unit tactics" themselves is a child of WW2, of the commandos employed and general vast increase of individual firepower (and its subsequent specialization). There was no small unit tactics even in WW1, when a platoon meant nothing more than one quarter of a company only able to fire one quarter of a company's worth of rifle bullets in a unit of time. Individual soldier didn't matter in a line of identically trained and armed riflemen. It took WW2 special forces getting into the spotlight of mainstream (Guns of Navarrone say hi), along with modern combined arms approach, to add tactics into the management of a squad of soldiers. The gentlemen playing napoleonic mass warfare on their lawns were simply not aware there may be some distinctions between the units smaller than a regiment.

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant. They're two different genres because while one focuses on objective control using set pieces (whether or not these represent battalions or single units) the other focuses on character progression and world exploration.

They are probably some railroaded mission-based crap? I'd rather play good RPGs like JA2 or Brigade E5

There's ample room to ignore the objective in either, as long as you don't want to beat the game and just larp around.

And one excludes another since when?

Since your last post where you said "THERE IS ONLY COMBAT!" I guess. Heck, I don't know.

Because railroadfags need some clutches so they can view their endgame cutscene and move on with a sense of accomplishment?

I think it's a matter of giving people sufficient motivation to continue playing once the mechanics alone get stale. I mean, when you're pulling 600 hours in Oblivion, all bets are off -- you've either fried your brain or discovered something special. Who am I to judge?

Drinking and wenching beats any kind of story, true.

I'll take my drinking and wenching in text-form, second hand, like a true gentleman.

Me too. I mean, why the hell are CRPGs moving away from their P&P roots and becoming more like pre-recorded movies? The idea just boggles my mind.

Too much genre-diffusion. You get a bunch of people like mondblut who think crpg's are all in the mechanics, and then design and writing becomes whatever old tired shit they find lying around.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Of course, particularly since there were no roleplaying games to borrow "roleplaying elements" from to begin with.

Making things up? Haven't we been through this before? Maybe you should remove the helmet once in a while to get things through. Of course there were role-playing games before DnD.
Here, let me quote myself. It was an answer to you by the way.

Agreed. No role-playing there. So, are we still calling it a role-playing game? Role-playing games existed decades before DnD was even conceived. DnD was a wargame that became a role-playing game. Wargame-like rules with role-playing. And that's why it was great.
See that on page 6 of ADnD? That is Gygax's signature. You know, the one that created DnD.

And you see on page 7? Role-playing game. That's right. RPG. Now, look a little to the right, on the same page.
"Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is a fantasy game of role-playing which relies upon the imagination of participants, for it is certainly make-believe..."
And a little lower.
"You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the Fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!"

So, why don't you wargamers get your ass out of RPGs if you don't like them? You are the latecomer kids that somehow think DnD created role-playing or that role-playing is having 3-4 people instead of an army.

edit: And something more.

ADnD 1st edition, page 7, 2nd paragraph under 'THE GAME' (there is an image in one of my posts above, for easy reference):
"You act out the game as this character, ....as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics... The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with!"

Also:
to act out (phrasal verb)

1. (idiomatic)To go through the process of a scene from a play, a charade or a pointless exercise.
   Despite already being aware, he will act out the pretence of a surprise.

 

[LeStryfe79]

http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1766807/brian_fargo_interview_new_torment_numenera_crpg.html

A decent update.

 

[mondblut]

Of course there were role-playing games before DnD.

Sure, there were.

Like this one:

See that on page 6 of ADnD? That is Gygax's signature. You know, the one that created DnD.

A freeform wargame found itself a market among would-be larpers and adjusted accordingly. What else is new?

So, why don't you wargamers get your ass out of RPGs if you don't like them? You are the latecomer kids that somehow think DnD created role-playing or that role-playing is having 3-4 people instead of an army.

These guys roleplayed cops long before DnD:

 

[mondblut]

So, here's a picture of a wheel:

Hello Todd, didn't realize I was talking to you. Or is that mr. Molineux reinvenshing the evolushon again?

How about listing the components that such a simulation requires?

1. Get a set of core rules.
2. Cross out everything that can't be implemented
3. ...
4. Profit.

Wizardry 1, Ultima 1 and even Rogue had sufficient exposure and were recognized as originators of a genre being borne from day 1.

Sufficient for what purpose? To fit your definition?

Arguing for the sake of arguing, I see. So which of the points fills you with doubt? That the majority of people with at least passing interest in videogames history know that the CRPG genre started somewhere around 1980 (with the exception of some dumbfuck Black Isle fanbois who think it started in 1997)? That they heard some franchises called Wizardry and Ultima had something to do with that? That almost no one remembers the likes of DND or Pedit5 doing the same several years earlier?

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant.

You claimed skirmish-level wargaming "is not representative of the genre". I provided you with sizable list of these "non-representatives" directly predating the appearance of first "RPGs", and explained why they couldn't exist in the age of gentlemen, their lawns and their toy soldier collections you seem to consider as "representative".

They are probably some railroaded mission-based crap? I'd rather play good RPGs like JA2 or Brigade E5

There's ample room to ignore the objective in either, as long as you don't want to beat the game and just larp around.

Googled. Realtime. Not interested.

I think it's a matter of giving people sufficient motivation to continue playing once the mechanics alone get stale. I mean, when you're pulling 600 hours in Oblivion, all bets are off -- you've either fried your brain or discovered something special. Who am I to judge?

Exactly. When someone pulled 600 hours in Oblivion, it is fairly obvious he doesn't need any kind of final Baphomet to kill and "win the game". And yet it entertained him 20 times the hours an average Baphomet-centric game offers. Go figure.

I'll take my drinking and wenching in text-form, second hand, like a true gentleman.

That's what geriatric whales do to a man

 

[St. Toxic]

Hello Todd, didn't realize I was talking to you. Or is that mr. Molineux reinvenshing the evolushon again?

I see an argument. Oh wait...

1. Get a set of core rules.
2. Cross out everything that can't be implemented
3. ...
4. Profit.

The description for literally any game with rpg elements.

Arguing for the sake of arguing, I see. So which of the points fills you with doubt? That the majority of people with at least passing interest in videogames history know that the CRPG genre started somewhere around 1980 (with the exception of some dumbfuck Black Isle fanbois who think it started in 1997)? That they heard some franchises called Wizardry and Ultima had something to do with that? That almost no one remembers the likes of DND or Pedit5 doing the same several years earlier?

All of these. If market exposure is what defines when a genre is established, one has to ask how mainstream a game has to be in order to be genre defining. I mean, Wizardry and Ultima are barely rpgs by the most reasonable standards.

You claimed skirmish-level wargaming "is not representative of the genre". I provided you with sizable list of these "non-representatives" directly predating the appearance of first "RPGs", and explained why they couldn't exist in the age of gentlemen, their lawns and their toy soldier collections you seem to consider as "representative".

But it's not representative of the genre. The reason these wargames predated the appearance of RPG's is because of genre diffusion. As a new genre was taking shape, the already established one naturally borrowed elements from it.

Googled. Realtime. Not interested.

It's more realistic that way.

Exactly. When someone pulled 600 hours in Oblivion, it is fairly obvious he doesn't need any kind of final Baphomet to kill and "win the game".

No, he's already lost the game beyond the point of salvation.

And yet it entertained him 20 times the hours an average Baphomet-centric game offers. Go figure.

Because games are all about fun, not mechanics, huh blut?

That's what geriatric whales do to a man

Grant them finesse and high moral standards? Sounds good to me.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Sure, there were.

Like this one:

These guys roleplayed cops long before DnD:

Again this "brilliant argument" were role-playing games were just sexual in nature. I guess I could say that man-to-man wargames are just that, right?

Here, take an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobbovia

A freeform wargame found itself a market among would-be larpers and adjusted accordingly. What else is new?

A wargame that took characteristics from role-playing games and became one while retaining its brand-name and a wargamer thinks it is still a wargame because...same name. The so called Indians in America are not from India but many people still call them like that. What else is new?

 

[mondblut]

Again this "brilliant argument" were role-playing games were just sexual in nature. I guess I could say that man-to-man wargames are just that, right?

Butthurt much?

The "brilliant argument", as a matter of fact, is that all those kinds of "roleplayings", from running around with foam "sword" to sucking a dick while dressed as a "cop", have no relation to a genre of tabletop games where people lay out maps, roll dice and compute the numbers. Despite the purveyors of the former eventually infesting the later and attempting to reinvent it for their taste (dressing as a "cop" included) with a various degree of success.

It's actually a good thing the Halo fans have now arrived to do the same. I feel avenged.

 

[mondblut]

I see an argument. Oh wait...

Why, your unsubtle "games must evolve" hint is a total Biothesda mentality. This is what they say everytime they Haloize the genre another step.

1. Get a set of core rules.
2. Cross out everything that can't be implemented
3. ...
4. Profit.

The description for literally any game with rpg elements.

Bullshit. The desciption for "literally any game with rpg elements" is:

1. Make a non-RPG.
2. Suddenly recall some idea from an obscure genre known as "RPG" and plug it in as an afterthought.
3. ...
4. Much more profit

All of these. If market exposure is what defines when a genre is established, one has to ask how mainstream a game has to be in order to be genre defining.

Within the context of videogame market of 1980, Wizardry and Ultima were among the bestsellers. Mainstream enough.

However, it is not market exposure itself that matters, it is recognition. Something becomes a new genre when a sufficient amount of people agree on it. Market exposure only helps to gather critical amount of said people, to get the word out. When a large enough amount of people agree "yeah, it haven't been done before", and then copycat products arrive to make it a trend rather than unique artifact defying categories, then it becomes a "genre".

I mean, Wizardry and Ultima are barely rpgs by the most reasonable standards.

Ah, Black Isle fan club detected, I rest my case.

As a new genre was taking shape, the already established one naturally borrowed elements from it.

So Chainmail borrowed elements from Dungeons & Dragons? Cool

Because games are all about fun, not mechanics, huh blut?

Yep, games are all about fun. Surprising, huh?

Now, some people find exploring, understanding and exploiting the mechanics fun. That's a different story.

 

[Moribund]

The rules and mechanics are the game, that's the definition of game.

Talking on your computer isn't a game, dressing up isn't a game. Most so called rpgs today are not even games, just movies. Can't even get too worked up about it, pointless to argue if people don't get that by now.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Butthurt much?

The "brilliant argument", as a matter of fact, is that all those kinds of "roleplayings", from running around with foam "sword" to sucking a dick while dressed as a "cop", have no relation to a genre of tabletop games where people lay out maps, roll dice and compute the numbers. Despite the purveyors of the former eventually infesting the later and attempting to reinvent it for their taste (dressing as a "cop" included) with a various degree of success.

It's actually a good thing the Halo fans have now arrived to do the same. I feel avenged.

Why should I be butthurt? I've got hundreds of choices to satisfy my hobby and I clearly understand and appreciate the influence of wargames in RPGs.
On the other hand, you seem to ignore on purpose the various tabletop games that existed before DnD and were too an inspiration for modern role-playing games.
And these games existed and actually had rules. I even posted a link to one which you ignored, instead focusing on the sexual LARP. Exactly what a religious person would do. Talking about make-believe.
Also, if you read about Blackmoor, you will see that Arneson was clearly inspired by such games. You ignore these factors that greatly shaped modern rpgs to fit your rpgs = wargames fantasy, probably because man-to-man wargames didn't get the goodies you wanted.
What is next? Motorcycles are bicycles because they have 2 wheels? Your make-believe doesn't stop after the session and is far worse than any LARPer could even imagine.