Development Info Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #39: Classes, Cooldowns, Attacks, Damage vs. Armor, and Tilesets

[St. Toxic]

What's the primary, most present and, arguably, most important mechanic of most RPGs?

I think that's character development.

 

[Delterius]

What's the primary, most present and, arguably, most important mechanic of most RPGs?

I think that's character development.

I believe 'Character development' can be conveyed in a number of different ways, from the statiscal to story driven dialogues. The latter are mechanics, the storytelling, the former is the story itself.

Within that point of view, combat is the most present and the primary mechanic not only because its most common within the game and its the most developed mechanic but also because the stories that RPGs tell are about some guy(s) that kills people.

 

[hiver]

but the proto-chicken that is not actually a chicken comes before the egg.

proto chicken is created in the egg, therefore...

Which is a different type of egg. If you go back far enough through this process, you end up with a species that isn't egg-laying at all.

What? What f`ing "different egg? There is no different kinds of egg in this story! Species that didnt lay eggs dont matter in this at all.
Genes change, mutations, adaption, evolution? Genus Dinosaurs - bird species of dinosaurs - almost chicken dinosaur - closer - closer - closer but not quite - egg - chicken dinosaur!
Of course its usually gradual in reality, but it is a simple straightforward process.
All changes to the genome create a living being inside the egg - therefore an egg always precedes new species within that genus.
And yes - birds are dinosaurs, literally. Dinosaurs did not go extinct.

Kind of like how turn-based combat evolved into the more realistic realtime 3rdperson shoulder-mounted cam combat before we really got to the golden egg-stage of cRPG's.

Yeah sure - Not!

More like dinosaurs didnt go extinct at all.
Even if climate changed and other genuses and species got a boost for some time.

What's the primary, most present and, arguably, most important mechanic of most RPGs?

I think that's character development.

Nope, characters and their abilities (and therefore players ability) to influence the gameplay being limited by character skills.

 

[St. Toxic]

Nope, character and therefore their abilities (and therefore players ability) to influence the gameplay being limited by their skills.

You mean character development?

I believe 'Character development' can be conveyed in a number of different ways, from the statiscal to story driven dialogues. The latter are mechanics, the storytelling, the former is the story itself.

Within that point of view, combat is the most present and the primary mechanic not only because its most common within the game and its the most developed mechanic but also because the stories that RPGs tell are about some guy(s) that kills people.

Right, but what's to distinct it from combat in Quake or Call of Duty? These too are games built with combat in mind and tell the story of guise who kill people. What you'll find in every single RPG, unlike other games, is a system of progression for the character which acts as the base for any encounter, be it combat or otherwise. It's not just the choice of whether you'll use a hyperblaster or a railgun to kill your next foe, but that your character in the game either has or lacks the affinity necessary for you to even make that choice -- so if there's a base on which the distinctive combat is built upon, combat itself cannot be the primary mechanic, as it would then dictate how these principles operate. As the same principles can be applied to non-combat encounters, a game could theoretically replace combat with hardcore diplomacy, or any other peaceful challenge where you face off against adversity based on your selected abilities, and be none the poorer on 'rpg mechanics'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that combat is, generally speaking, an ever present element in any game no matter the genre, but it's arguable whether it's actually necessary.

 

[Delterius]

Right, but what's to distinct it from combat in Quake or Call of Duty? These too are games built with combat in mind and tell the story of guise who kill people. What you'll find in every single RPG, unlike other games, is a system of progression for the character which acts as the base for any encounter, be it combat or otherwise. It's not just the choice of whether you'll use a hyperblaster or a railgun to kill your next foe, but that your character in the game either has or lacks the affinity necessary for you to even make that choice -- so if there's a base on which the distinctive combat is built upon, combat itself cannot be the primary mechanic, as it would then dictate how these principles operate. As the same principles can be applied to non-combat encounters, a game could theoretically replace combat with hardcore diplomacy, or any other peaceful challenge where you face off against adversity based on your selected abilities, and be none the poorer on 'rpg mechanics'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that combat is, generally speaking, an ever present element in any game no matter the genre, but it's arguable whether it's actually necessary.

I should have said this, but I foresaw that our disagreement is merely how we organize our thought. I agree with your post. Character Development is, indeed, the basic premisse that all RPG stories must follow. And, ideally, Combat would only be one system out of many that convey that story. But reality is different, in the sense that merely putting together a interesting combat system (encounter/inventory/class/whatever designs + the kind of combat) by itself is already a strain on many a developer's organizational competence - to approach same issues/quests in ways other than Combat is taking things to a level that very few developers can reach. Worse, its even impossible if you consider that most developers are willing to throw much of their time and money at the industry's cinematic focus and its something that the average codexian might expect out of the box - ditto P:E.

So when I say that Combat is the primary mechanic, I mean it de-facto. Even if Obsidian accomplishes Project: Eternity's scope well, its still very likely that Combat and its auxiliary systems are going to be the game's mainstay and most developed section. Not only because its necessary, but also because a lot more effort was put into Combat systems over the decades than everything else (or so is my impression as a consumer). Also, filler combat might make into the game.

That has little to do with why I think the earlier argument was strange. Setting includes the rules of combat, and gameplay often shapes setting - not only that but, ideally, combat/gameplay and setting are best working together, not submitting one to the other. When you care too much about a franchise's setting, both the combat and the setting might grow stale; while if you don't care much, the story loses a lot of meaning.

Finally, I bolded the "lacks" above because I think its a good rule of thumb to identify a game's focus. Quake and Call of Duty might incorporate rpg mechanics, but the stories they tell aren't of character development (and, therefore, RPGs) because, amongst other things, you only develop abilities, you don't choose one character concept over others.

 

[hiver]

When you say "development" - its too broad. Its not just about developing a character. Anything can be considered developing a character. Clothes, items you collect, weapons you choose... whatever.
Distinction of character skills limiting how you as a player can affect and experience gameplay as a whole - is what makes an RPG different from other types of games.

It seems like a negative thing at first look, of course - but we all know that this feature has a great positive effect of enabling multiple such limited playstyles to be incorporated into one game.

 

[St. Toxic]

When you say "development" - its too broad. Its not just about developing a character. Anything can be considered developing a character. Clothes, items you collect, weapons you choose... whatever.

That's certainly a part of it, but I'm not sure I follow your thinking. The reason I choose such a broad term in the first place is because I want to include all aspects rather than exclude the most important ones.

I should have said this, but I foresaw that our disagreement is merely how we organize our thought. I agree with your post. Character Development is, indeed, the basic premisse that all RPG stories must follow. And, ideally, Combat would only be one system out of many that convey that story. But reality is different, in the sense that merely putting together a interesting combat system (encounter/inventory/class/whatever designs + the kind of combat) by itself is already a strain on many a developer's organizational competence - to approach same issues/quests in ways other than Combat is taking things to a level that very few developers can reach. Worse, its even impossible if you consider that most developers are willing to throw much of their time and money at the industry's cinematic focus and its something that the average codexian might expect out of the box - ditto P:E.

Those darn violent video-games. Hitting the problem, which tends to be human(oid) in nature, over the head has always worked well for us before, so why stop now?

So when I say that Combat is the primary mechanic, I mean it de-facto. Even if Obsidian accomplishes Project: Eternity's scope well, its still very likely that Combat and its auxiliary systems are going to be the game's mainstay and most developed section. Not only because its necessary, but also because a lot more effort was put into Combat systems over the decades than everything else (or so is my impression as a consumer). Also, filler combat might make into the game.

You're probably right, but it's still rtwp so they can't be putting too much effort into it.

 

[hiver]

When you say "development" - its too broad. Its not just about developing a character. Anything can be considered developing a character. Clothes, items you collect, weapons you choose... whatever.

That's certainly a part of it, but I'm not sure I follow your thinking. The reason I choose such a broad term in the first place is because I want to include all aspects rather than exclude the most important ones.

But you have to specify what aspects exactly you mean. Development just by itself doesnt mean anything because it can mean anything at all.

In almost any kind of game.

What's the primary, most present and, arguably, most important mechanic of most RPGs?

Its the mechanic of character skills limiting the way you play, thus providing you with a specific path through the entire gameplay. Be it combat, or solving quests or influencing the story or whatever the game has for its content.
Thus as a fighter you will experience a different gameplay then as a mage, diplomat or rogue. Its not just that you are developing those characters but that they are limited through the skills to a specific gameplay or content.
A fighter doesnt get to experience frying someone with fireballs. A mage doesnt get to experience what its like to lay smackdown, and so on.
This can be further diversified or constrained - but nothing happens if there are no limits to start with.

Maybe Delterious wanted to ask whats the most important style of gameplay in a RPG and someone can argue it is combat because we see that in most RPGs, but then he formulated the question in a wrong way.
I wouldnt agree with that because that just makes the game an action RPG.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I love this shit. The debaters change, the argument remains. Never change, Codex, never change.

 

[DraQ]

You mean character development?

Nope. Development is what happens when those skills increase, which they usually do, but don't strictly have to.

Picture a game with broad and diverse array of skills and stats, but no level up or other stat increase mechanics - you get fixed point pool, allocate them on chargen, maybe get it sprinkled with some RNG, and that's it, you have to roll with what you've built.

No development, still an RPG, because you still have to define your role mechanically.

 

[St. Toxic]

Nope. Development is what happens when those skills increase, which they usually do, but don't strictly have to.

Well, theres creation. If you're allocating stats or skills at some point, you're still developing the character.

Picture a game with broad and diverse array of skills and stats, but no level up or other stat increase mechanics - you get fixed point pool, allocate them on chargen, maybe get it sprinkled with some RNG, and that's it, you have to roll with what you've built.

No development, still an RPG, because you still have to define your role mechanically

That's still development, because you start with a bunch of points to distribute. You might as well think of it as the same pool of points that you'd otherwise get leveling up in the game. How about we suppose that we start the game with a pre-made character who doesn't advance in any way and without any points to distribute?

But you have to specify what aspects exactly you mean. Development just by itself doesnt mean anything because it can mean anything at all.

But if I'm specific in this context I'm forced to exclude aspects of character development. No, better to be all inclusive to easier bridge between various rpg's without entering into the discussion of what defines the genre. For CD it's the skills, the stats, the inventory, the equipment, the goals, the speech options.

Its the mechanic of character skills limiting the way you play, thus providing you with a specific path through the entire gameplay. Be it combat, or solving quests or influencing the story or whatever the game has for its content.
Thus as a fighter you will experience a different gameplay then as a mage, diplomat or rogue.

That's not strictly true, though. Plenty of games don't have classes and don't distinguish one play-through from another by giving the player enough resources to max himself out. But despite this flaw in the design you still have the core rpg components, skills that define your character's ability to accomplish a specific task.

A fighter doesnt get to experience frying someone with fireballs. A mage doesnt get to experience what its like to lay smackdown, and so on.
This can be further diversified or constrained - but nothing happens if there are no limits to start with.

This is generally not true. There's usually an option for mixing magic and melee and, to be honest, it's not particularly game-breaking.

 

[Delterius]

Distinction of character skills limiting how you as a player can affect and experience gameplay as a whole - is what makes an RPG different from other types of games.

It seems like a negative thing at first look, of course - but we all know that this feature has a great positive effect of enabling multiple such limited playstyles to be incorporated into one game.

Also agree. Actual variety in the characters you create is one of the things that determine a game's focus on character development.

Maybe Delterious wanted to ask whats the most important style of gameplay in a RPG and someone can argue it is combat because we see that in most RPGs, but then he formulated the question in a wrong way.
I wouldnt agree with that because that just makes the game an action RPG.

Thing is, as I see it, those arguing combat is more important is because combat is more prevalent. So when I asked that question (which was formulated in the wrong way) I meant to provide that point of view. Just look at my answer to Toxic.

Picture a game with broad and diverse array of skills and stats, but no level up or other stat increase mechanics - you get fixed point pool, allocate them on chargen, maybe get it sprinkled with some RNG, and that's it, you have to roll with what you've built.

No development, still an RPG, because you still have to define your role mechanically.

Now that's just arguing words, 'character development' might as well as be conveyed through character creation as well. Besides, there's also character development through other systems than the statistical.

 

[DraQ]

Well, theres creation. If you're allocating stats or skills at some point, you're still developing the character.

Since I'm not in the mood for pointlessly bickering over semantics, how do you propose we call increasing stats and levels as opposed to pre-game chargen? Because those two are completely independent of each other.

 

[Delterius]

Well, theres creation. If you're allocating stats or skills at some point, you're still developing the character.

Since I'm not in the mood for pointlessly bickering over semantics, how do you propose we call increasing stats and levels as opposed to pre-game chargen? Because those two are completely independent of each other.

No they aren't. Character creation sets possible courses for increasing stats and such. Grouping them in a single system is fine.

 

[DraQ]

No they aren't.

You can have games without chargen, but with stat increases (many jPGs), there doesn't seem to be anything preventing games with just chargen and no increases from working - indeed, it would even remove quite a few balancing problems, you obviously can have games featuring both (most cRPGs) and games featuring neither (most other games) - ergo, they are independent gameplay elements even though they are operating on potentially the same set of stats.

Problem?

 

[Delterius]

Just because a game may or may not have ranged/magical/melee combat doesn't make these subsystems independent of each other when coexistant.

We are arguing words, but its so likely that generation and development are intertwined that we might as well as call them all development.

 

[Infinitron]

Why are you insisting on chargen, DraQ? Remove that too. Is it still an RPG then?

 

[hiver]

But you have to specify what aspects exactly you mean. Development just by itself doesnt mean anything because it can mean anything at all.

But if I'm specific in this context I'm forced to exclude aspects of character development. No, better to be all inclusive to easier bridge between various rpg's without entering into the discussion of what defines the genre. For CD it's the skills, the stats, the inventory, the equipment, the goals, the speech options.

But all those are different ways to implement limits.

Its the mechanic of character skills limiting the way you play, thus providing you with a specific path through the entire gameplay. Be it combat, or solving quests or influencing the story or whatever the game has for its content.
Thus as a fighter you will experience a different gameplay then as a mage, diplomat or rogue.

That's not strictly true, though. Plenty of games don't have classes and don't distinguish one play-through from another by giving the player enough resources to max himself out. But despite this flaw in the design you still have the core rpg components, skills that define your character's ability to accomplish a specific task.

Classes are just one way to limit the player created character ability to influence the whole of the gameplay. Skill points, xp-points, items, equipment, dialogue checks and options, attributes.... - all limit what you can do inside the game.

Skills just by themselves do not present a limitation. Because if all content is open to all skills (or items, or stats, or equipment) then ... youre not really playing an RPG.
In fact, if all content is open to all skills then there is no sense in having them in the first place - and the only difference is then created by differences between players themselves - which we all know as "twitch" gameplay. Player skills - instead of character skills.

A fighter doesnt get to experience frying someone with fireballs. A mage doesnt get to experience what its like to lay smackdown, and so on.
This can be further diversified or constrained - but nothing happens if there are no limits to start with.

This is generally not true. There's usually an option for mixing magic and melee and, to be honest, it's not particularly game-breaking.

I just gave a simple example. Of course there are games that let you max out almost everything if you grind enough like a lunatic. Of course there is Oblivion, but is it considered a good RPG because of it?

Ergo - RPGs which give more limits are better than those that dont.

RPGs that provide more different content that can be accessed only if you have proper skills (limited if you dont) - are better RPGs. Role playing. What use is there for a role if you can access all content with all "roles"?

- Games that rely only on combat as content - are action RPGs. A whole subgenre based on the fact that they do not provide enough different content, nor enough limits to access it.

Even in games that allow you mix magic and melee or other skills, there are still limits. Sometimes you cannot be as good mage as a pure caster is. Sometimes you cannot be a diplomat or a rogue.
Every game takes its own turn in adjusting these features to greater or smaller extent - in their own ways.

Some allow more mixing and enable players to experience all of content in one go - Skyrim, Oblivion and such - action RPGs all. All the development you can want - but no limits. You get to experience all of the content in one playthrough if youre determined to do it and grind enough. The price for that ends up being that other types of content are lost. Non-linearity, diplomatic paths, diversification of story lines or quests and so on.
These games are a great example. The more you remove constrains or limits - the less of an RPG the game is.

Same for Facepalm3 versus New Vegas. Same engine, same rules, same setting even. (though difference in quality of other features such as quality of writing also contributes a lot to overall quality - naturally)

Some constrain it to the maximum - Age of Decadence: full RPG to the bone. (some secondary or tertiary features not being popular is irrelevant here) Result: Non-linearity increased to maximum. Diplomatic, non-combat playthrough... not one but several different ones available, story splinters into completely different directions, all players experience completely different gameplay.
(withing restrictions provided by the character builds of course)

-edited details for better clarity-

 

[quasimodo]

Actually the rooster comes first.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Actually the rooster comes first.

Mine doesn't.

 

[DraQ]

Why are you insisting on chargen, DraQ? Remove that too. Is it still an RPG then?

I'm insisting on having one character different from another, because that's what makes game an RPG.

Numbers going up alone don't guarantee that because as can be seen in some jPGs they don't necessarily imply build diversity.

That's not strictly true, though. Plenty of games don't have classes and don't distinguish one play-through from another by giving the player enough resources to max himself out. But despite this flaw in the design you still have the core rpg components, skills that define your character's ability to accomplish a specific task.

Skills just by themselves do not present a limitation. Because if all content is open to all skills (or items, or stats, or equipment) then ... youre not really playing an RPG.

This, although I would make an exception for games that despite filtering content through stats do technically allow maxing character out, but it generally doesn't occur in normal gameplay - see Morrowind.

In fact, if all content is open to all skills then there is no sense in having them in the first place - and the only difference is then created by differences between players themselves - which we all know as "twitch" gameplay. Player skills - instead of character skills.

Well, it might just as well be tactics instead of twitching, but this.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm insisting on having one character different from another, because that's what makes game an RPG.

Fine, so how about a party-based RPG with no chargen and no level ups? Each possible party member is different from the others.

 

[Delterius]

I'm insisting on having one character different from another, because that's what makes game an RPG.

Fine, so how about a party-based RPG with no chargen and no level ups? Each possible party member is different from the others.

Then player's experiences wouldn't differ through the characters themselves, rather their decisions to manage this 'pre-generated' party in, say, combat. Making this game either a Strategy or a Action game. Assuming combat is as prevalent as we've come to expect, of course.

So, in a way, DraQ's point of view only needed further elaboration.

 

[DraQ]

I'm insisting on having one character different from another, because that's what makes game an RPG.

Fine, so how about a party-based RPG with no chargen and no level ups? Each possible party member is different from the others.

In a party based game where you create your whole party, the party as a whole is de facto the PC. If and by how much parties differ determines how much of an RPG the game is.

 

[St. Toxic]

But all those are different ways to implement limits.

Hence character development.

Skills just by themselves do not present a limitation. Because if all content is open to all skills (or items, or stats, or equipment) then ... youre not really playing an RPG.

Well, they wouldn't exactly be skills were that to be the case. But if you're able to acquire every skill necessary to access all the content?

I just gave a simple example. Of course there are games that let you max out almost everything if you grind enough like a lunatic. Of course there is Oblivion, but is it considered a good RPG because of it?

Ergo - RPGs which give more limits are better than those that dont.

This is going off on a tangent. I joined the debate only to voice my opinion that rpg's don't revolve around combat as much as they do around character development, which is a feature that all rpg's in the genre have in common.

You can have games without chargen, but with stat increases (many jPGs), there doesn't seem to be anything preventing games with just chargen and no increases from working - indeed, it would even remove quite a few balancing problems, you obviously can have games featuring both (most cRPGs) and games featuring neither (most other games) - ergo, they are independent gameplay elements even though they are operating on potentially the same set of stats.

Problem?

No problem, but it's still the same system and it's still character development. Whether you start at level cap or reach it throughout the game, you'll still be developing your character, so why distinguish between the two?