Yes but not without stat progression.One can make an RPG with no leveling up, and no getting XP.
Why not?Yes but not without stat progression.One can make an RPG with no leveling up, and no getting XP.
This is the limitation of cRPGs that are based on scripted narratives. That said, it is possible to create cRPGs that are more gameplay/system-oriented/sandboxes, but such RPGs are uncommon and it would require a separate debate on what C&C is (what qualifies as Choices and Consequences).But is the definition of an RPG really CYOA-style story choices?
Thanks, i've been reading this forum various years ago and made my first contribution through this postI think you just described every BioWare game ever made.
Anyway, welcome to RPG Codex.
This, I'd even say that when it comes to large scale or long term consequences of your choices - almost all.Most of them, unfortunately. It's the minority that offers an actual C&C.
That's nearly every RPG that has choices in the first place.RPGs that, despite being about decisions they all lead to the same path giving an artificial sense of choice. Whetever the game itself or some particular quest.
Oh well, looks like i'am overstimating the narrative aproach of RPGs since in Fallout New Vegas the way how you influence the world around not only determinates the ending but also the final confrontation (The Second Battle of Hoover) depending the factions you convince to help you or just absent due to being eradicated.That's nearly every RPG that has choices in the first place.RPGs that, despite being about decisions they all lead to the same path giving an artificial sense of choice. Whetever the game itself or some particular quest.
What is a 'meaningful' consequence anyways?
Clearly, having ending slides in 3 different colors ala Mass Effect 3 is not.
But are ending-slides by themselves, even if more complex, meaningful for the game? They don't change the game itself, only the conclusion.
If we follow that line of thinking, meaningful consequences have to impact the game itself. But where to draw the line? Does simply having combat suffice, as it implies (fatal) consequences of your actions? Or is that too immediate?
I mean if a game has a main storyline that terminates in an ending, how could there be choice and consequence? Linear Narrative RPGs can only let you engage with what the writers wrote. If they didn't write something then it can't happen.
Would a game with real choices and consequences even be a CRPG? CK2 had more choice and consequence than any RPG ever did. Of course it wasn't a walking simulator and many people only accept walking simulators as RPGs.
So Baldur's Gate 3 style. Makes sense in a narrative RPG context.C&C is overrated. Player agency in how they prosecute the game/plot is far more important. Trying to make C&C influence plot is a fools errand. C&C should be like the Fallout 1 miltary base where you can draw away mutants with the radio, or poisoning the stag lord's wine in Kingmaker. The player achieves the same plot goal, but how they get there has player agency. This is proper C&C that is achievable as it doesn't demand different plots paths our outcomes.
But is the definition of an RPG really CYOA-style story choices? So games like Fallout where the first RPGs? I would put forward that what defines an RPG is progression, getting XP and levelling up.