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

[tuluse]

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?

Doesn't the original Sid Meier's Pirates have chargen with no later stat increases?

 

[TheEntitledOne]

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?

Doesn't the original Sid Meier's Pirates have chargen with no later stat increases?

Well, you had the items.

 

[hiver]

Even in party based RPGs there must be differences in gameplay to make it all work. Limits to content, even if they are nominal and differences in gameplay are therefore more or less infinitesimal - such as differences one party experiences in a combat heavy game compared to another.
Like in BG games.

Do you have Druid with you, or a priest. One mage or more? Paladin, barbarian, rogue? Ranged or melee etc, etc.
You cant have them all.

 

[St. Toxic]

You cant have them all.

But is it really a limit if it's basically down to cosmetics and larp, like a P:E party?

 

[Delterius]

You cant have them all.

But is it really a limit if it's basically down to cosmetics and larp, like a P:E party?

What do you mean?

 

[hiver]

You dont know that about PE.
You guys just misunderstood what Sawyer meant by balance and went off on that tangent.

But all those are different ways to implement limits.

Hence character development.

Hence character development is meaningless without limits.

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?

Same thing - if having skills doesnt make sense or has no use at all - youre not playing an RPG.

Though, until you acquire all skills there will be limits to what you can do.

Even in bathesda games which dont have any big limits to overarching content the minute content is different, at least until you grind so much to max all available skills.
The start of the game will be slightly different in executing combat for a character that is a mage compared to that who is a fighter or a rogue relying on bows, for example.

In BG games even some enemies presented limits, such as mages or creatures being immune to specific types of weapons, or magic.

In New Vegas, on a basic level, as a fighter you dont have access to solutions a diplomat has. Quests are therefore completed in different ways which have different consequences.

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.

Fine, fine, alright. I agree with that. Im just clarifying what makes character development actually work. In an RPG.

 

[St. Toxic]

Hence character development is meaningless without limits.

No shit. Defining any aspect of a character in detail always eliminates other potential possibilities that could have taken its place.

Same thing - if having skills doesnt make sense or has no use at all - youre not playing an RPG.

Though, until you acquire all skills there will be limits to what you can do.

So, until you max yourself out you are playing an rpg.

You dont know that about PE.
You guys just misunderstood what Sawyer meant by balance and went off on that tangent.

You don't know that. You're probably just misinterpreting what Sawyer really meant by balance.

What do you mean?

I mean, does it really matter if you kill the grunt with 4 Blaster-shots or 2 Shutgun-shots, if both are equally viable and valid options?

 

[Delterius]

I mean, does it really matter if you kill the grunt with 4 Blaster-shots or 2 Shutgun-shots, if both are equally viable and valid options?

As I recall, he not only said he wants as many character concepts to be viable thorought the entirety of the game, but also that he wants you to feel sometimes happy and sometimes sad that you did/didn't make such and such choices (it was somet. Following your example, he doesn't want grunts to be equally strong/weak against both blaster and shutgun shots - rather that there'll be grunts weak to blasters and there will be grunts weak to shutguns.

If anything the armor type system seems illustrative of this. Certain weapons for certain kinds of gear, but all weapons are/should be useful a couple of time over the course of the game.

 

[hiver]

So, until you max yourself out you are playing an rpg.

The more limits to available content there is - and the more diverse content is: the more of an RPG a game is.
Thats why we have sub genres of RPGs.


When someone says he means to make all available skills have some use - and that they will build appropriate content for those available skills and wont even rely on combat as an xp source... there is not much to misinterpret.
Eventual execution may turn out to be bad but thats another matter entirely.

 

[St. Toxic]

So, until you max yourself out you are playing an rpg.

The more limits to available content there is - and the more diverse content is: the more of an RPG a game is.
Thats why we have sub genres of RPGs.

So the game starts out as an RPG and ends as some sort of subgenre of RPG's?

 

[Infinitron]

Personally, I think even a game with one single predefined character and no level ups could work as an RPG. When you load up a saved game in the middle of an RPG, play for an hour without leveling up during that gameplay session, and then quit, were you not playing an RPG?

You were still playing a character whose power is defined by stats, whose interaction with the world is defined by skills, who customizes himself by equipping various items, etc.

 

[Delterius]

No shit. Defining any aspect of a character in detail always eliminates other potential possibilities that could have taken its place.

But does it matter when its only a matter of time until you can follow every path avaiable in the gameworld? In TES, you can be everything at the same time. Wouldn't that mean Skyrim's focus rests on Exploration, rather than choosing what character you're going to be?

Personally, I think even a game with one single predefined character and no level ups could work as an RPG. When you load up a saved game in the middle of an RPG, play for an hour without levelling up during that gameplay session, and then quit, were you not playing an RPG?

You were still playing a character whose power is defined by stats, whose interaction with the world is defined by skills, who equips items, etc.

Some other game mechanic must take place in order to convey character development and differentiate player's experience. If characters' stats are static and there's no way other way to express the character's identity and beliefs (say, choosing between Paragon and Renegage in Mass Effect - just better), then its not a RPG. If there's a lot of combat, it becomes a Action or a Strategy game. Otherwise it's likely a Adventure (I mean focused on Exploration) game.

 

[hiver]

So, until you max yourself out you are playing an rpg.

The more limits to available content there is - and the more diverse content is: the more of an RPG a game is.
Thats why we have sub genres of RPGs.

So the game starts out as an RPG and ends as some sort of subgenre of RPG's?

No, the action RPG is always an action RPG. I already explained and gave examples for smaller incremental limits that provide role playing even in action RPGs that rely only on combat.

If all skills and all content is available right from the start, then there is no need for skills at all.
Then you dont have an RPG at all.
Because then you dont play any kind of role, and there is no character development, except if you are larping it all in CoD, or Half life.

 

[Infinitron]

Some other game mechanic must take place in order to convey character development and differentiate player's experience. If characters' stats are static and there's no way other way to express the character's identity and beliefs (say, choosing between Paragon and Renegage in Mass Effect - just better), then its not a RPG. If there's a lot of combat, it becomes a Action or a Strategy game. Otherwise it's likely a Adventure (I mean focused on Exploration) game.

I express my identity via loot gathering and equipment customization, and which quests I choose to complete. M:

 

[Delterius]

Some other game mechanic must take place in order to convey character development and differentiate player's experience. If characters' stats are static and there's no way other way to express the character's identity and beliefs (say, choosing between Paragon and Renegage in Mass Effect - just better), then its not a RPG. If there's a lot of combat, it becomes a Action or a Strategy game. Otherwise it's likely a Adventure (I mean focused on Exploration) game.

I express my identity via loot gathering and equipment customization, and which quests I choose to complete. M:

Though half of the post is satire, I actually believe that 'roleplaying' is inherent to video games in general. But also that a game that focuses on roleplaying must differ itself from a game that focuses on exploration and simply adventuring - meaning that a RPG 'filters' character concepts through its game mechanics, denying many and confirming one. So focusing on that last part of your statement - 'which quests I choose to complete' - I'd say that a game that simply offers you a lot of content without 'forcing' you to choose a single path amongst many is more about exploration, as opposed to roleplaying.

In short, Skyrim is a 'Adventure' game in the sense that not only there's a lot of exploration, Skyrim's story is about a character that can effectively be the awesomest man in the land. That's what the game mechanics tell you. And as far as the mechanics care, Dragonborn can be every character concept at once. You can certainly roleplay or even larp one concept over others, choosing not to wear heavy armour because you're a mage etc, but the game mechanics never conditioned that behavior.

Similarly, in a Strategy or Action game, what differs player experiences is their ability - which matters more than the character that they are playing, as in Action games, or the 'character' of their (in a broad sense) 'nation', as in Strategy games. Its not like Action or Strategy games can't allow for roleplaying, quite the contrary, or even that a RPG can't be a little about the player's ability (be it decision making or dexterity). But rather that a Pure Action/Strategy game is about Player Skill, a Pure RPG is about Character Development - hybrids have each of these as their respective focus, submitting the other(s). Same thing with 'Adventure' games and Exploration.

So instead of defining RPGs in reaction to what we've seen in the last few years (IT HAS STATS, ITS RPG), I try to define RPGs in a way that subverts that. Every game can have roleplaying elements, but not every game puts defining characters above everything else. Choosing better shooting talents in <Shooter with RPG elements> does not define your character because player skill is still above those RPG elements.

 

[Infinitron]

'which quests I choose to complete' - I'd say that a game that simply offers you a lot of content without 'forcing' you to choose a single path amongst many is more about exploration, as opposed to roleplaying.

I never said the hypothetical RPG would let you do whatever you want without forcing you to choose a path.

which quests I choose to complete

The "single path" would be one of those quests that you can choose, a choice which happens to remove other choices.

Also, there's no player skill required in my hypothetical RPG.

 

[hiver]

Then the loot and equipment customization replace and become the skills.
If the only limit is something that comes from you, as in "you choose which quests to complete" - then you are larping in a player skill based game. Not an RPG.

The "single path" would be one of those quests that you can choose, a choice which happens to remove other choices.

Ah, then you are in an RPG, generally speaking.
Could also be some kind of hybrid or one of the sub genres depending on other things.

 

[Delterius]

'which quests I choose to complete' - I'd say that a game that simply offers you a lot of content without 'forcing' you to choose a single path amongst many is more about exploration, as opposed to roleplaying.

I never said the hypothetical RPG would let you do whatever you want without forcing you to choose a path.

which quests I choose to complete

The "single path" would be one of those quests that you can choose, a choice which happens to remove other choices.

So I went off on a tangent and didn't realize what you said was perfectly in accordance to my post. I agree with you, a game with mutually exclusive content and without character skills and level ups could be a RPG. But that depend on how exactly that is implemented and on the quests themselves.

Do you have any input on the rest of that post though?

 

[Infinitron]

I've always assumed that the core element of a CRPG was the abstraction of skills, replacing player skill with character skill. Leveling up and "development" are secondary to this basic element, or rather, they exist only to support it and make it more complex.

 

[Delterius]

Well, that definition seems a reaction to the 'Action RPG' and ends up not differing <what it considers RPGs> from <Strategy> games. In both, the physical attributes of the character replace those of the player, whose only relevant ability would then be decision making. What you did was deny the dicothomy between player dexterity and character; but you still keep character x player 'wisdom'.

So what I prefer is to give more importance to 'character' when confronted to the player's 'decision making skills'. In a Europa Universalis game, you can take the weakest nation in the world and, through your skillfull maneuvering and luck, turn it into a continental empire in a few hundred years. In a RPG there would be limits. At one point you'll come up with a character concept that is useless, because all/most character concepts have their strenghts and weaknesses.

By instead making 'character' the core element of a RPG I don't even have to shun Action games.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I sometimes think that genres don't necessarily need to have a single defining element. Instead they can have multiple elements which are associated with them (but not exclusive to them necessarily), but with no single element being required for it to be in the genre. The more of these elements which a game possesses, the more clearly it belongs in a particular genre. So leveling/chargen, loot, heavy skill abstraction (all games abstract skills to some extent) are all things that, when present in a game, tend to make it more rpg-like, but a game could be an rpg without any single one of them missing, as long as it contains enough other rpg elements to qualify.

 

[hiver]

An RPG never completely replaces or limits player skills entirely.
It is always you playing with those characters.

Therefore, my definition:

An RPG is a game where a player creates and controls one or more characters, whose capacity to affect quests, events, stories and gameplay of the gameworld are limited and governed by values of their skills or abilities in confluence with players skills - which can never completely override limitations of the character skills.
While the story, gameplay, and quests of the gameworld in turn can be opened, closed or otherwise changed, to bigger or smaller degree - and thus provide differing consequences and different gameplay - depending on confluence of player skill and limits of the skills and abilities of game characters he created.

Same goes with other features such as collecting items, equipment, loot or info - knowledge.

 

[Moribund]

It's pretty simple.

The classic series are gold box, wizardry, might & magic and ultima. Anything very close to them is an RPG everything else is disgusting larp crap on top of a poorly designed consolized corridor shooter. So if you didn't love those games RPGs are not for you and you don't belong here, and that's maybe half or more of the codex, certainly all the most vocal retards.

 

[DraQ]

In short, Skyrim is a 'Adventure' game in the sense that not only there's a lot of exploration, Skyrim's story is about a character that can effectively be the awesomest man in the land. That's what the game mechanics tell you. And as far as the mechanics care, Dragonborn can be every character concept at once. You can certainly roleplay or even larp one concept over others, choosing not to wear heavy armour because you're a mage etc, but the game mechanics never conditioned that behavior.

Actually the funny thing is that barring the JoAT start, Skyrim actually does better at forcing player to choose his build than predecessors, because perks are finite and three resource pools/attributes are increased in mutually exclusive manner.

The problem is that quest and content design doesn't really acknowledge it, even though it easily could even without redesigning the quests themselves.

But rather that a Pure Action/Strategy game is about Player Skill, a Pure RPG is about Character Development - hybrids have each of these as their respective focus, submitting the other(s).

By this definition pure RPGs don't exist and would suck if they did.

Anyway, player skill VS character skill is a fallacy, see below.

I've always assumed that the core element of a CRPG was the abstraction of skills, replacing player skill with character skill.

Nope. Abstraction of skill is a necessary consequence of interface, and will remain so at least until full neural interfaces become part of standard gaming rig. Which may be never.

You can't actually use your real life swordfighting, sharpshooting or mobility skills when all you have is your KB and mouse. You can't let your real life charisma shine through computer screen.

RPGs aren't about abstraction. They are about exploiting the existing abstraction by allowing different characters with skill levels that differ. Good implementation of RPG mechanics isn't about making player's skill meaningless at all cost. It's about making characters skill a limiting factor, but not necessarily the only limiting factor. An RPG can very well demand any kind of skill from the player to accomplish certain tasks, it's that player skill alone should never be sufficient to do so.

Claiming otherwise will quickly lead us to the realm of RPGs that aren't games.

 

[Infinitron]

RPGs aren't about abstraction. They are about exploiting the existing abstraction by allowing different characters with skill levels that differ. Good implementation of RPG mechanics isn't about making player's skill meaningless at all cost. It's about making characters skill a limiting factor, but not necessarily the only limiting factor. An RPG can very well demand any kind of skill from the player to accomplish certain tasks, it's that player skill alone should never be sufficient to do so.

Potato, po-tah-to. : x I said it was the core element, I didn't say it had to be the only element. The core of any RPG is its system - that is, its skill abstraction mechanism. "Character development" is just an aspect of such systems. It makes them more complex by allowing them to evolve as the game progresses.