I think spell failure is a concept that makes sense in the context of any 'true' roleplaying game. People will never pefectly cast a spell - if you cast the same spell ten thousand times, you will botch it at least once in your lifetime.
A proper implementation of a spell failure is to have unintended consquences, because spells are powerful and require strict discipline (usually) to execute correctly. It's not like an idiot flailing a sword around and getting lucky, it's usually quite the opposite of that.
A proper spell failure has a failed spell cascade into the user using a different spell they know or don't know - a system like this is simple and represents the concept of a spell failure without making it too frustrating. It might even be funny and our player might enjoy himself, even if it forces him to reload. (Oh shit! I just cast fireball on myself and died! Or, oh shit, I just cast some crazy spell I have no idea what it does!)
If the spell is multi stage affair, you can have some stages succeed, but not the others, for example you may summon a demon, but fail to control it.
If we don't want players to reload, ever, I think we're trying to be too harsh and controlling to players - as it was, people complained up and down about Shadowrun Return's saving mechanisms, even though they were honestly 'fine'. If we want to encourage no-reloading behavior, then have defeat more than a Game Over screen or a Reload Menu. Dark/Demon's Souls, for instance, asks you go reclaim your souls. I'd say the mechanic there is definitely what they were going for - meaningful death, but recoverable losses. You die, you're stuck with your failure, but you can overcome it and actually become stronger than before. But then again, Dark/Demon's Souls has no manual "reload" feature (at least, if I recall right).
I think that if you can't avoid having situations where reloading is the only way out you can still tie some meta-mechanics to reloading to make player avoid it as much as possible.
Sort of trying to have the best of both worlds - reloads and ironman.
If two things are different enough then a theory used to describe the playstyles in one thing is not going to be particularly applicable to another. And P&P RPGs and CRPGs are that different.
That's a statement, not a fact.
It's not enough for two things to just be different enough, they need to be different in regards to what is relevant to that theory.
Having elements of game, simulation/worldbuilding and narrative aesthetics is relevant to it. Being played by either a bunch of nerds using pens, paper and dice or a lone nerd using computer and software is not.
They are played entirely different. The basic activity done in P&P RPGs is making shit up and playing believe with an optional rule system(you can play a P&P RPG with no clearly defined systems at all) to help structure that making shit up and playing believe. CRPGs are video games where you can only interact with whatever game systems and content the game designers have created.
Highlighted relevant part.
Content is essentially nothing else but "making shit up" done mostly by devs, upon which you generally "make believe" - seems familiar now?
I noticed that having mechanics as important part of cRPGs confuses you, but rest assured that it's only because any computer game must necessarily be a formal system, so how a cRPG plays needs to be expressed via mechanics and structure, whereas how a PnP plays, does not.
CRPGs are not computer version of RPGs despite the similarity in their names.
Of course they are not (despite some codexers being very butthurt if you tell them that). They are different media.
Please show how in the hell GNS is in any way applicable to CRPGs
I already have. Several times.
But since you're asking nicely:
cRPGs just like PnP and some other interactive media are broad enough medium to contain both elements that are game-like, conworld and narrative (either fixed or emerging) that can be judged on the basis of it's aesthetics (characters, themes, structure).
Different audiences will prioritize different of those elements in case there is some conflict between them.
You can apply such classification to other sorts of interactive media, and limited version of it to other media or games as well.
because all you've done is make the incorrect assumption that it is
Nope.
You can't have a gamist novel or a narrativist chess because GNS doesn't apply to those things, just like it doesn't apply to CRPGs.
Again, you have it ass backwards.
GNS theory doesn't apply to novels, because they necessarily lack gamist elements and it can't apply to Chess, because Chess don't form any discernible narrative, and said narrative wouldn't contribute as one of driving forces behind the game anyway.
Whether or not theory can be applied to something is decided by the properties of this something, not some up-front declaration.
You still can, however, examine novels in terms of NS axis, or all sorts of strategic games in terms of GS.
For example I'd consider (proper - meaning 'hard') Sci-Fi to be relatively 'simulationist' as far as literature goes, given how it tends to focus on setting consistency and examining consequences following from premise of the setting, often at the expense of character and narrative development.
I'd therefore expect preference for hard Sci-Fi and other sorts of hard speculative fiction to positively correlate with preference for both well developed, consistent settings and complex simulationist mechanics in cRPGs and with preference for simulationist mode of play in PnP RPGs.
There, testable predictions.
GNS is not a general game theory of why people play games like you seem to think it is. If it was you could apply it to all game genres. And you certainly can't.
Don't be dumb.
Games without meaningful narrative, for example, fall outside GNS spectrum.
I don't see the reason why games containing all three elements would be excluded, though.
Even you acknowledge that you can't apply it to GNS. You claim that you can't satisfyingly fulfill the narrativist agenda in CRPGs do to their limitations and you also bizarrely claim that you can't satisfy the gamist agenda in them either. Ultimately leading to your conclusion that Simulationist is the only way to CRPG. If you can't do G or N and are only left with S then common sense would say that GNS must not be a very good theoretical framework for describing CRPGs and you would probably need some other sort of theoretical framework to do so.
Or rather 'DERP'.
Given that in a situation where all three agendas don't clash it should be perfectly possible to satisfy all three demands, GNS is more of a question of priorities when they do clash.
cRPGs generally have all three elements, so
of course GNS does apply to them. More so, cRPGs oriented towards gamism or narrativist not only can, but do exist, some are even great. It's just that the nature of the medium doesn't really let gamist or narrativist cRPG to reach their full potential.
(If it's any consolation, I also consider gamist PnP players to be playing wrong games
.)
Of course this illustrates the actual reason you try and apply GNS to CRPGs. To validate your preference. You like simulations. You want the games you play to as much as possible be simulations. That is all fine. But you go farther and attempt to claim that simulations are objectively the correct way to make and play games. It is just a subjective preference.
It's both, but feel free to argue otherwise. Argue. You know, with arguments and stuff.
Also, do note that GNS merely provides convenient verbiage, I could be arguing the exact same thing without it, I'd just need to explain more.
The actual basis of GNS is an attempt to place and acknowledge P&P RPG playstyles in a theoretical framework. Nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed. And it just happens to cover pretty much everything that combines those three elements.
It originated from people arguing on the interenet about which playstyle is the best one and the correct way to role play. You would need some deeper theory on why people play games and the fundamental desires that games, or other forms of entertainment fulfill. Thhts on the sere are probably some thougubject that other people have put out but GNS ain't it.
Again, you're wrong.
I don't fucking care what actually motivates people to play games. I care about how different games and people preferring one to another differ, in regards to the kind of game, because while I (obviously) consider my preference to be superior, I also want to explore the driving forces behind other preferences, and put all of them in the context of each other and respective game elements that cater to them.
I'll say it again, the Narrativists agenda isn't interest in story. You are trying to broaden what it is in order to make it applicable to something else you want it to be. I have some information for you. The narrative in P&P RPGs is never good.
So? The narrative in books is never interactive or at least actually driven by the reader.
exploring then themes and ideas using their characters, that is what is fun and fulfilling to people who play that way.
And? It doesn't change that what motivates those people is primarily aesthetics, maybe even ethics or philosophy explored by those themes and characters, as opposed to general consistency or quality of the game part divorced from its conworld semantics.
Maybe "narrativism" just isn't the luckiest term, but it doesn't matter.
Creating a consistent and realistic setting is not the goal of simulationist agenda. It is just a tool that facilitates simulationists gameplay. Simulationist gameplay is to explore that world and setting. Consistency just makes it easier to do that.
Nope. Consistency is what nesures there is something to explore as opposed to a loose pile of unrelated garbage.
Structures are interesting to explore, loose piles are not.
What differs is that in PnP players (and GM) need to have compatible ideas about what they are trying to do - as befits a co-authored medium - while in cRPGs
...player and devs need to gave compatible ideas about what the game should do, otherwise the player may become disappointed by the game and make a butthurt thread on the RPGCodex detailing how much does the game suck and why.
When you have clearly defined and communicated rules for how something works it is consistent. Tetris, despite being entirely abstract and having no aspect of realism, is perfectly consistent.
Tetris has no conworld, so you're clearly speaking of consistency in entirely different context.
Simulationists are interested in consistency in game's fiction and between fiction and mechanics to a degree determined by contribution of mechanics to the flow of the game.
How again do you like them herrings? Red?
The places where consistency issues pop-up is where things aren't governed by rules and mechanics.
Except where ill thought out rules lead to bullshit.
Apart from that, cRPGs contain game fiction too.
What do video game examples have to do with a P&P play style? Nothing. The immersionist playstyle is playing in a certain way in order to invoke certain feelings and emotions. Like playing a call of Cthulhu game in order to invoke the feeling of increasing madness and inevitable demise.
Ah. Over here it's called the atmosphere. You can have it in video games too, though I'm not sure if it can meaningfully conflict with any of GNS trio, in either context.
Which was the point. That GNS doesn't even cover the adequately cover the full spectrum of P&P RPGs, much less broadening it to cover CRPGs or even video games in general(as you seem to be implying earlier in this post).
Except I don't need to broaden it. It covers cRPGs just as well as it does PnPs and in similar aspects.
Bartle's classifications can be seen as Combat, Exploration, Progression, and Story when the implications of a massively social game are applied to them.
That's your personal extension of Bartle's classification.
To the point where you couldn't even use original terms.
Combat - In a social game it takes the form of competition and combat against other players. And this Bartle's killers. Which is actually player-killers. Those interested in PVP.
What about PvE?
It covers what, but not why, how and where, hence often surprising results and poor predictive power.
tl;dr
darkpatriot doesn't understand that discriminatory power of a system stems from what makes categories different rather than what they have in common, also can't see the wood for trees.
GNS does not cover why, how or where either.
Nope. But it does cover who best enjoys what and what else they might enjoy as well. It's useful in both PnP and cRPG contexts.
Why two people might enjoy the Narrativist playstyle is not going to be the same.
I'm not terribly interested in psychology, if you'll excuse me.
Or you might as well figure out how to reduce the complexity while still retaining the same quality and quantity of interesting choices.
You can't reduce it ad infinitum so discerning when you do start to lose important stuff is critical.
Should I quote Einstein?
The purpose of games isn't to craft worlds. That is the purpose of a simulation.
The purpose of games also isn't to explore either stories or themes.
The thing is that both RPGs and computer games are something bigger than just games, despite being called that, just like cRPGs and PnP RPGs aren't just different versions of the same thing despite both being called cRPGs.
'Games' we're speaking of are multiaspect things combining elements resembling conventional games with that of simulation or, if you excuse me, narrativism.
None of these directions is inherently more important than the other, though particular media may yield to some better than others.
Level scaling doesn't suck because it ruins the aesthaetics (dragon vs cat), that's just a side effect. It sucks because it ruins sense of progression and player agency. In that, there is no difference between scaling and linearity.
That only boils down to just aesthetics if you don't put enough value into encounters being supported by game's narrative, setting and internal logic, level scaling ruins player's experience in that regard.
Actually, that depends on the realization of scaling. If it works using some combination of sensible leveled lists and only scaling particular opponents upward, it may very well not cause such problems, while still removing many of the benefits of free-roaming world and being an ugly hack overall.
I wonder how wizardry wizardry 8 would play with no kill exp.
Probably pure use based (hopefully with some antigrind instead of just naive implementation), as Wizardry 8 was never particularly goal focused, so the progression would go very chunky.
Or it might just have used extra (hidden) goals as padding - clear XP gates in linear segments like monastery, XP rewards for visiting towns and important locations, etc.
it's just that you won't be able to grind forest wolves to max level and then stroll through content like in Baldur's Gate.
You will also not miss out on XP just because you find an alternative to just murderslaughtering everything in your way.
