Proof that the mainstream thinks that RPG means stats system

[Woetohice]

__

 

[Severian Silk]

Final Fantasy Tactics

FF Tactics is a TBT game, not TBS.

 

[Shagnak]

I kinda agree with Calis and Sarvis (less strict on the "player skill" part - I think an action-RPG is still an RPG as long as there is some element in the "action" part that is not dependent on a player's manual dexterityl), as per my post here:
http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=400242#400242

In the past I 've tried not to get too involved in this topic, it always ends in bloodshed and no-one will ever 100% agree.

 

[Müg]

Final Fantasy Tactics

FF Tactics is a TBT game, not TBS.

I have learned something new today.

 

[Jasede]

There is not "TBT" genre. I bet Mikail wrote that page himself. It's a TBS game, thank you very much.

 

[Müg]

There is not "TBT" genre. I bet Mikail wrote that page himself. It's a TBS game, thank you very much.

Actually, I can certainly see the differences, and I'd even prefer to be differences, because there's no resource management and it's so filled with RPG stat elements that it's not so much how you use the units as how you build them.

 

[Jasede]

I just like sticking to what's been used in the past. Change is dangerous.

 

[pkt-zer0]

FF Tactics is a TBT game, not TBS.

Fun fact: FFT is referred to as an SRPG in the Japanese trailer for the remake, where the 'S' stands for 'Simulation'. Try making sense of that one.

 

[sabishii]

FF Tactics is a TBT game, not TBS.

Fun fact: FFT is referred to as an SRPG in the Japanese trailer for the remake, where the 'S' stands for 'Simulation'. Try making sense of that one.

That's because, according to one of the links in that Wiki article, FFT is actually a "tactical role-playing game." TRPG: "In Japan these games are known as "Simulation RPGs", a designation which might seem peculiar to native English speakers."

 

[Joe Krow]

"It's the charcter, not the player." Taking this ideal to an extreme leads to simulations not games. The "game" aspect of an rpg comes from "controlling" an avatar. In traditional rpgs you controlled the intellectual attributes of your character (tactical dicissions, moral choices, etc.) which trivializes stats like intellegence and wisdom. This also created a degree of seperation between a characters abilities and what he is actually doing... he may not have actually been smart enough to have made that choice. Realism was sacrificed for entertainment.

Takinng it a step farther you have "action rpgs." I would argue that they rely just as heavily on the player for intellectual choices but take the character even farther out of the equation by disregarding its physical attributes in favor of the players. Stats are marginilized and the character is now mentally and physically disconnected from the game world. The player is "emmersed" because he is no longer playing a charcter at all. It's the player's choices, the player's abililities; the character is just a place to store your loot.

I would define an rpg as: A simulation in which the player is presented with tactical and moral dilemmas to resolve. The degree to which a players succeeds or fails is determined, as much as possible, by his avatar's attributes.

I would define an action rpg as: An action game in which the player's abilities are, at least minimally, modified by the attributes of his/her avatar.

In a way, action and simulation are diametrically opposed; the more you move toward one the father you are from the other. How you define rpgs and action rpgs has a lot to do with where you would place them on this spectrum.

 

[Alex]

Hello there!

I would like to ask people here a question. A lot of people claim that rpgs are about character skill, not players skill. However, most rpgs have strategic (or tactical, whatever) battle games that rely in the player's skill. Sure, the player's ability with a sword does not affect his character's, but his ability at tactical games does change the outcome of battles.

If you got rid of anything that required skill from the game, it would just be a big exploration of the areas and characters the developers put in, right? And while such game might not be necessarily bad, it is not what anyone calls rpgs today.

I do believe that all rpgs are tied to one or more "mini games", like the combat game in fallout, which relied on the player's tactical skill. In fact, I believe that if any crpg is to try to become less combat oriented, it should provide other "mini games" to other activities beside combat.

 

[Netherium19]

Hello there!

I would like to ask people here a question. A lot of people claim that rpgs are about character skill, not players skill. However, most rpgs have strategic (or tactical, whatever) battle games that rely in the player's skill. Sure, the player's ability with a sword does not affect his character's, but his ability at tactical games does change the outcome of battles.

If you got rid of anything that required skill from the game, it would just be a big exploration of the areas and characters the developers put in, right? And while such game might not be necessarily bad, it is not what anyone calls rpgs today.

I do believe that all rpgs are tied to one or more "mini games", like the combat game in fallout, which relied on the player's tactical skill. In fact, I believe that if any crpg is to try to become less combat oriented, it should provide other "mini games" to other activities beside combat.

Your a failure.

 

[Severian Silk]

You cant spel.

 

[Sarvis]

Hello there!

I would like to ask people here a question. A lot of people claim that rpgs are about character skill, not players skill. However, most rpgs have strategic (or tactical, whatever) battle games that rely in the player's skill. Sure, the player's ability with a sword does not affect his character's, but his ability at tactical games does change the outcome of battles.

If you got rid of anything that required skill from the game, it would just be a big exploration of the areas and characters the developers put in, right? And while such game might not be necessarily bad, it is not what anyone calls rpgs today.

I do believe that all rpgs are tied to one or more "mini games", like the combat game in fallout, which relied on the player's tactical skill. In fact, I believe that if any crpg is to try to become less combat oriented, it should provide other "mini games" to other activities beside combat.

As I said, player decides, character does. You can take things to an absurd level and develop an AI system that uses stats to determine every action the character does... but then you don't have a game anymore. It breaks the rule, it becomes "character decides, character does."

Combat is most often the biggest part of RPGs because combat is very easy to model this way. <b>Joe Krow</b> mentioned character intelligence being trivialized, and typically it is because it's hard to model anything interesting with it. Typically intelligence baed skills are used in a "pass/fail" skill check, which is interesting for all of 2 seconds.

I don't think it has to be that way though.

 

[THUNDERSTRUCK]

ok now that we have the proof what shall we do :

 

[Alex]

[quote="Sarvis]
As I said, player decides, character does. You can take things to an absurd level and develop an AI system that uses stats to determine every action the character does... but then you don't have a game anymore. It breaks the rule, it becomes "character decides, character does."
[/quote]

I understand what you are saying about character decision. However, it would be possible to take away all skill from character decisions, by having no "wrong choices". It is still possible to have consequences for your choices, but all of them would be worthy exploring. I believe Chris Crawford's storytron system would be the closest thing to this, although I suppose it will still take some skill to make sure your story makes sense.

[quote="Sarvis]
Combat is most often the biggest part of RPGs because combat is very easy to model this way. <b>Joe Krow</b> mentioned character intelligence being trivialized, and typically it is because it's hard to model anything interesting with it. Typically intelligence baed skills are used in a "pass/fail" skill check, which is interesting for all of 2 seconds.

I don't think it has to be that way though.[/quote]

I also don't think it has to be so. I do believe that we need to have any set of skills to be enjoyable they either need a game comparable to the combat minigame associated to it. In Fallout, the medic skill was associated to combat, so it was an important skill. However, people would rarely take no combat skills altogether because, even if you could do it, you would skip one of the most fun parts of the game.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Hello there!

I would like to ask people here a question. A lot of people claim that rpgs are about character skill, not players skill. However, most rpgs have strategic (or tactical, whatever) battle games that rely in the player's skill.

p0wned. :D

Good point, btw, lad.

Furthermore, I think the lack of structure as to what exactly an RPG is supposed to be is killing the genre.

Sure, people can go ahead and try to turn all these great ideas that went into games now getting tossed together into the same made-up category for some reason or other into strict rules to abide to. Which would be the worst end of all things "RPG" there could ever be. On top of being pretty silly. Alternatively, here's my suggestion: Let go and throw these silly labels that don't carry any meaning away. I know.. ain't gonna happen.

 

[JarlFrank]

Alternatively, here's my suggestion: Let go and throw these silly labels that don't carry any meaning away. I know.. ain't gonna happen.

Actually, if I'd make a game, it would be like this. Not clearly definable. As a developer, you should not say "Let's make an RPG!" or "Let's make a shooter!" or "Let's make an adventure game!", but rather "Let's make a game with shooter-combat, RPG-like stat systems and quests, and dialogue and riddles like in adventure games! Now, I don't care which genre this would belong in, but I'd think it would rock!"

If there's a game and it's good, I don't fucking care what genre it is. Take King of Dragon Pass for example. Is it RPG? Is it Strategy? Or is it some kind of kingdom simulator? I don't fucking know in which genre to put it, just because it's so fucking unique and inventive.

Don't let the genre make your game, let your game make the genre.

 

[Xi]

Branching story with multiple different endings.

Character progression that allows one to alter the way in which their character approaches choices in the game and from which allow him to deal with the consequences in meaningful ways.

That's it. Interestingly most games fall far short of my definition. There hasn't been a proper RPG released in ages, if ever.