Interview RPG Codex Interview: Dan Vávra (Warhorse Studios)

[Ogg]

That we determined. Still I fail to see the reason against player taking direct manual control if the interface permits it. It's not like there cannot be other layers of stats to be used in this mode.

Except that if you thin out the layer of stats to a bare minimum, what you have is not an RPG any more. It doesn't mean that it won't be a good game. Just that it won't be an RPG. It's not a progress, just a different kind of fun.

Do I use my high charisma to seduce the barmaid or do I try steal the key in the innkeeper purse? Do I cast a fireball that'll also burn my fighter or do I prepare a forced retreat?

Those are equally valid choices in the game in question - the one you are bashing here for some arbitrary reason.

Point me to a single sentence that would lead me to the conclusion that this kind of interaction is possible in this game. I don't know much (as a matter of fact) about the game, I admit, but what is said in this interview speaks more about immersion, verysimilitude, quality of the setting... And not a single word about the game system. You know, what makes an RPG an RPG. On the other hand, the Czech dev speaks about taking out things that have been a major part of RPGs from the dawn of time. And his only reason is "back then, computer were not powerful enough."

Player skills: head shot=dead

Yes, that too, if permitted by the game. If the artificial facet of numbers whose only function is to reflect reality can be substituted by manual control, why not do that?

There's no reason not to do that, but it will simply be an FPS. There's plenty of those if you want. I may be mistaken, but I think those have existed for quite some time now. Not sure. I should check.
I'm not a big fan of shooters, for they are a game of reflex and the most precise is the one who wins. And I don't win much.

Character skills: aim the head, character stats will decide if I miss and how much damage I did

Which is completely redundant and artificial - autistic even - if the interface provides a means of effective control directly in player's hands. See Gothic. Now, calculating that damage would still be good idea in this case.

If you only use your player skills, you're not playing a role, you're playing yourself.

Grand Turismo lacks the setting. Oh, that's the redundant part? Then name an RPG without a setting All that your example proved was that stats are not the defining feature of an RPG.

Ok, now I know you weren't trolling me, you really don't understand a single word I wrote. Indeed, stats are not what defines RPG. Otherwise, statisticians would call themselves RPGamers. What defines an RPG is the use of the stats. For the third time, an RPG is a game where characters skills (or stats If you fancy the word) matter more in the outcome of an action than the character skills (reactivity, reflexes or dexterity).

That's not what I'm claiming. Just read again. What I wrote was that an RPG is a game were character skills matter more than player skills.

Which I disagree on.

Then tell me what it is ffs!

That's what makes Deus Ex more of an RPG than a shooter for instance. Is morrowind a skill game? Or are the damage you deal governed by your stats?

Or maybe how you use those stats? And I think you just couldn't throw spells mindlessly in Morrowind - you had to aim, and run and do the bunch of other things. You know - the things that make up gameplay. Because rolling imaginary dice is no gameplay, I fear.

The gameplay in an RPG is also in the construction of your character, which is done by developing its skills (leveling up or gaining stat/skill boost through your quests) and by acquiring loot (once again through quests, exploration, and of course killing monsters). Kiting is just an exploit of the bad mechanics of the game. Once again a limitation of real time RPG. Nevertheless, what matters most in Morrowind is your level for it decides not only the damage you do, but also the number of hit/mana points you have. Which is fairly more significant in deciding who will survive when you encounter a cliff racer.
Besides, Morrowind is certainly not the game I would have chosen to determine what is an RPG, for it is clearly more of a glorified hiking simulator.

 

[Hobz]

My unsubstantiated fears are that Kickstarter will become a tool from big-name publishers to get free venture capital without the hassle of shareholders.

Most unlikely. In the end kickstarter is auto-regulated, people won't see the need to be "patrons" to big name publishers, neither will they see the point of pre-buying a game 1-3 years before release, especially for the same olds AAA military shooters. On the other side of things I don't see devs agreeing to be strawman of big publishers, it would basically be the worst of both worlds for them.

 

[Mrowak]

The gameplay in an RPG is also in the construction of your character, which is done by developing its skills (leveling up or gaining stat/skill boost through your quests) and by acquiring loot (once again through quests, exploration, and of course killing monsters).

Yep, but these are always auxiliary. The gameplay is about using them, not about them. Nothing in the interview says you won't be utilising stats and abilities.

Kiting is just an exploit of the bad mechanics of the game.

I didn't mean kiting, but maneuvering. You know - stuff you normally do in a fight. Because fights are not about standing in one place and hitting each other with sticks. Indeed if that was the case in Morrowind the gamplay - at least combat - would be pathetic.

Once again a limitation of real time RPG.

Then remove it - relocate stats elsewhere, where they are needed.

Nevertheless, what matters most in Morrowind is your level for it decides not only the damage you do, but also the number of hit/mana points you have. Which is fairly more significant in deciding who will survive when you encounter a cliff racer.

Which is also something this interview does not deny.

Besides, Morrowind is certainly not the game I would have chosen to determine what is an RPG, for it is clearly more of a glorified hiking simulator.

I don't know about that. It fulfills all PnP requirements to my mind.

To be honest with you I am not a great fan of stats in character's progression because they lead to all kinds of nonsense in gameplay (like you having so many HP that you can take 20 arrows in the chest for a magical reason) which destroys challenge. I prefer to relegate stats to equipment and focus character progression on abilities, creating gameplay based around the player's creative use of them.

 

[Ogg]

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games. And historically, they're turn based games. What you're making seems (but we don't know much about it yet) just like an action game where player skills matter more than character skills. That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is. Nothing wrong with building an action game. But don't claim it's an rpg simply because it's open world and in a medieval setting.

Obviously this is your definition of RPG. Are you also against team-based RPG because in P&P you only play one character at a time ? As it occurred to you that turn-based was a necessity precisely because of all the dice rolling ?

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying real-time skill-based realistic is the only way to go, i'm not even stating which one is the most "fun" or "interesting". But seriously, the genre is vast enough that you don't have to go full butthurt when someone has different bias. Beside, this only concerns combats, obviously they will still need stats and skill for pretty much everything else.
PS:T being RTwP is not an RPG in your book I guess...

None of you learned to read obviously! Where did I say that TB was mandatory in an RPG. What is mandatory though is the prevalence of character skills over player skills.

Fuck! I heard about the decline of the Codex, but I never experimented it this clearly.

In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him. ROLE PLAYING GAME. The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper. I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well. Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something, because he cant feel his body (strenght), some other values could be represented visually and realtime, because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started, but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.

And then, you have the combat. That is the part where some old school people will have problems. Skill based realtime gameplay is evil! In the old days, it was just not possible to make a fencing simulator, so it was "simulated" with dice throws and some rules. But in the real world, fencing is skill based and if I want to play the role of a swordsman, it only makes sense, that the game will ask me to show some skill. Problem is, that fencing is hard, I can tell you, I had few fencing lessons, so since the game is done for entertainment purposes, it will make the fencing much easier, but will still require some skill. What is wrong with that? There is still huge difference between action game and rpg game combat. My character still has lots of stats that affect the combat (strenght, agility, stamina, perks....), I have lot of equipment that I modified. Isnt that roleplaying? In my opinion it is. But anyone has different tastes and I cant do anything about that

An RPG doesn't need to be deeper to be an RPG. You play a role. Right. But what makes your role a role and not a prolongation of yourself? If you rely mainly on player skills, it's most certainly not much of a role (otherwise Super Mario also lets you play a role and it therefore should be followed by the RPGCodex). You're not reassuring much with your explanation here. In the old days, people played Die by the sword and it was fun. But Noone would have called that an RPG for it wasn't one!

In an RPG, you not only play a role, but you also somehow define that role, by your actions, decisions, choice of character, stats, skills... There's one thing that would help me see what your game really is: how different two characters (I mean in two different playthrough for instance) will play? Will there be different kind of "builds"? Can I play a diplomat? A fencer? A troubadour? An archer?

 

[Quigs]

My unsubstantiated fears are that Kickstarter will become a tool from big-name publishers to get free venture capital without the hassle of shareholders.

Most unlikely. In the end kickstarter is auto-regulated, people won't see the need to be "patrons" to big name publishers, neither will they see the point of pre-buying a game 1-3 years before release, especially for the same olds AAA military shooters. On the other side of things I don't see devs agreeing to be strawman of big publishers, it would basically be the worst of both worlds for them.

I hope you're right. You're almost definitely right on the Call of Madden series and all that nonsense, It's just I don't see why they *wouldn't* go the kickstarter route for games that aren't proven successes. Big companies have already gone with the 'Always Online!' feature and soul-draining DRM, I don't see going kickstarter losing them many customers.

 

[Akarnir]

and story that is often morally very uncomfortable for me (for instance offering no other than evil choices in quests).

Fuck political correctness. The guy is fucking incoherent. He rants about their disneyland setting than cries because he can't always be the goodie two shoes.

Authentic Adventurers are assholes. That was always the case. When your life is constantly on the line, and you have little clue of all the stuff that is taking shapes around you, you survive by being selfish and decisive. Very little a few (fucking grammar) adventurers were actual good guys, in reality. Historians back then used to embellish them, but more often then not it's the circumstance that convinced them to side for the ''good''.

That doesn't mean you can't have your principles, line of conduct...
But there is no Evil/Good Option in real life. Most quest aren't about being either good or evil, just perform certain actions and get a reward from it (or double crossing the quest giver) .
Life is neutral overall, and every single job isn't about being altruistic or not. That's one dimensional and not plausible at all.

I don't see what's wrong in leaving you only evil choice. Pussy dev.

Skyrim had quests where you offer to help a nice paladin exorcise a haunted house and then your character immediately volunteers to beat a defenseless old man to death because it sounds fun. Sure, you're dealing with forces beyond your ken or whatever, but you don't even get the option to turn it down. It's retarded and uncomfortable for all the wrong reasons.

That doesn't look so far stretched. As I wrote, and as authenticity dictates, adventurer tend to be assholes. So they will side with whoever can pay the bill. So if the paladin was offering a good reward, why not helping him.

And overall, good/evil is just a fallacy that I can't take anymore in video games. Almost nobody is good/evil in real life. Not today, not back then in medieval times, and not in the future.
Good/evil is not a decisive factor in life , and people, even the so called heroes (politicians, generals...) do not think in terms of good/evil. Nobody does.

Events aren't shaped so that you have to choose between good/evil decisions. Hell events aren't supposed to be shaped so that you have to take a specific decision (between 4 options) at a specific time when a random guys begins to speak to you.
So all this choice Bullshit makes me laugh. I'm tired of having to wait 30 min for a dialogue to pop up so that i can take ONE decision. A much more fluid system would be much more interesting (where you are constantly, in real time, deciding how you will play the game and behave).

 

[Ogg]

Nothing in the interview says you won't be utilising stats and abilities.

It just says that it's clearly not a priority and that direct interaction and immersion is of a somewhat larger significance.

Kiting is just an exploit of the bad mechanics of the game.

I didn't mean kiting, but maneuvering. You know - stuff you normally do in a fight.

That's one of my point: in RT games, strategy usually end up only being about maneuvering (in most case, it's just moving around quckly just to avoid your enemies' attacks). That's where TB and phase based game seems more tactical to me.

Once again a limitation of real time RPG.

Then remove it - relocate stats elsewhere, where they are needed.

I was talking about kiting. What stats are associated with kiting?

Nevertheless, what matters most in Morrowind is your level for it decides not only the damage you do, but also the number of hit/mana points you have. Which is fairly more significant in deciding who will survive when you encounter a cliff racer.

Which is also something this interview does not deny.

The only hint we have about the gameplay is that the developper doesn't want much stats check or at least not "visible" ones. He also wants player skills to play a more important role (see what I did here). Not really going in that direction.

Besides, Morrowind is certainly not the game I would have chosen to determine what is an RPG, for it is clearly more of a glorified hiking simulator.

I don't know about that. It fulfills all PnP requirements to my mind.
To be honest with you I am not a great fan of stats in character's progression because they lead to all kinds of nonsense in gameplay (like you having so many HP that you can take 20 arrows in the chest for a magical reason) which destroys challenge. I prefer to relegate stats to equipment and focus character progression on abilities, creating gameplay based around the player's creative use of them.

You're the one who brought Morrowind and Daggerfall, where bloated HP is the inevitable fate of any character. Ruining all opportunity to enjoy the role you should be playing (here I did it again).

 

[Ogg]

And overall, good/evil is just a fallacy that I can't take anymore in video games. Almost nobody is good/evil in real life. Not today, not back then in medieval times, and not in the future.
Good/evil is not a decisive factor in life , and people, even the so called heroes (politicians, generals...) do not think in terms of good/evil. Nobody does.

Video game villains usually do, unfortunately. They just take the "evil" path. And daedric princes in Skyrim are a sad example of this lazy writing.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games. And historically, they're turn based games. What you're making seems (but we don't know much about it yet) just like an action game where player skills matter more than character skills. That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is. Nothing wrong with building an action game. But don't claim it's an rpg simply because it's open world and in a medieval setting.

Obviously this is your definition of RPG. Are you also against team-based RPG because in P&P you only play one character at a time ? As it occurred to you that turn-based was a necessity precisely because of all the dice rolling ?

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying real-time skill-based realistic is the only way to go, i'm not even stating which one is the most "fun" or "interesting". But seriously, the genre is vast enough that you don't have to go full butthurt when someone has different bias. Beside, this only concerns combats, obviously they will still need stats and skill for pretty much everything else.
PS:T being RTwP is not an RPG in your book I guess...

None of you learned to read obviously! Where did I say that TB was mandatory in an RPG. What is mandatory though is the prevalence of character skills over player skills.

Fuck! I heard about the decline of the Codex, but I never experimented it this clearly.

In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him. ROLE PLAYING GAME. The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper. I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well. Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something, because he cant feel his body (strenght), some other values could be represented visually and realtime, because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started, but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.

And then, you have the combat. That is the part where some old school people will have problems. Skill based realtime gameplay is evil! In the old days, it was just not possible to make a fencing simulator, so it was "simulated" with dice throws and some rules. But in the real world, fencing is skill based and if I want to play the role of a swordsman, it only makes sense, that the game will ask me to show some skill. Problem is, that fencing is hard, I can tell you, I had few fencing lessons, so since the game is done for entertainment purposes, it will make the fencing much easier, but will still require some skill. What is wrong with that? There is still huge difference between action game and rpg game combat. My character still has lots of stats that affect the combat (strenght, agility, stamina, perks....), I have lot of equipment that I modified. Isnt that roleplaying? In my opinion it is. But anyone has different tastes and I cant do anything about that

An RPG doesn't need to be deeper to be an RPG. You play a role. Right. But what makes your role a role and not a prolongation of yourself? If you rely mainly on player skills, it's most certainly not much of a role (otherwise Super Mario also lets you play a role and it therefore should be followed by the RPGCodex). You're not reassuring much with your explanation here. In the old days, people played Die by the sword and it was fun. But Noone would have called that an RPG for it wasn't one!

In an RPG, you not only play a role, but you also somehow define that role, by your actions, decisions, choice of character, stats, skills... There's one thing that would help me see what your game really is: how different two characters (I mean in two different playthrough for instance) will play? Will there be different kind of "builds"? Can I play a diplomat? A fencer? A troubadour? An archer?

It would really be helpful, if you actually read what I wrote, before you answer. If you did, you would probably not whine about the stuff I havent said.

 

[Hobz]

What is mandatory though is the prevalence of character skills over player skills.

Who said so ? you ?

And please spare me the strawman argument "if the player skill is involved in the slightest your are no longer playing a role anymore". You are not playing yourself when you mouse-click to slash with your sword seriously, that's still a game mechanism (one you like far less than TB combat, we got that).

Just because a game is not a top-down TB RPG dosen't make it a friggin First Person Shooter. What if the game has stats like Dex, Str, Charisma, Hit points, has combat and non-combat skills & spells, levels and experience, C&C, well writen dialogues and so on and so on, will it not qualifies as an RPG ? And again, i'm not saying it will, i'm not saying the game will be good or even playable, but I find a bit idiotic to dismiss it as "not an RPG" just because it will feature a more skill-based combat.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Someone sensible should explain how stuff works on the Codex to Mr. Vavra and how to ignore what needs be ignored.

 

[Tzaero]

Its always a funny day when a dev is on the codex.

 

[Mrowak]

Nothing in the interview says you won't be utilising stats and abilities.

It just says that it's clearly not a priority and that direct interaction and immersion is of a somewhat larger significance.

Kiting is just an exploit of the bad mechanics of the game.

I didn't mean kiting, but maneuvering. You know - stuff you normally do in a fight.

That's one of my point: in RT games, strategy usually end up only being about maneuvering (in most case, it's just moving around quckly just to avoid your enemies' attacks). That's where TB and phase based game seems more tactical to me.

Which is extremely ironic because real-life tactics is all about maneuvering.

In fact the chief line in favour of party-based TB RPGs is that they allow greater degree of maneuver control than RT counterparts. Then again RT, single character RPGs excel at just that.

Once again a limitation of real time RPG.

Then remove it - relocate stats elsewhere, where they are needed.

I was talking about kiting. What stats are associated with kiting?

Enemy speed vs. your speed. For example, the player should not be able to outrun (and kite) a bear, which is much faster over long distances. No kiting for you in that case. So how about put stats there and resign from "to hit" rolls?

Nevertheless, what matters most in Morrowind is your level for it decides not only the damage you do, but also the number of hit/mana points you have. Which is fairly more significant in deciding who will survive when you encounter a cliff racer.

Which is also something this interview does not deny.

The only hint we have about the gameplay is that the developper doesn't want much stats check or at least not "visible" ones.

That's fair enough, because stats never create gameplay. In other words you are overestimating their importance.

He also wants player skills to play a more important role (see what I did here). Not really going in that direction.

Well, it will have to be a skill with something, right? Also, it's not like he promised a tactical wargame? Or did he?

Besides, Morrowind is certainly not the game I would have chosen to determine what is an RPG, for it is clearly more of a glorified hiking simulator.

I don't know about that. It fulfills all PnP requirements to my mind.
To be honest with you I am not a great fan of stats in character's progression because they lead to all kinds of nonsense in gameplay (like you having so many HP that you can take 20 arrows in the chest for a magical reason) which destroys challenge. I prefer to relegate stats to equipment and focus character progression on abilities, creating gameplay based around the player's creative use of them.

You're the one who brought Morrowind and Daggerfall, where bloated HP is the inevitable fate of any character. Ruining all opportunity to enjoy the role you should be playing (here I did it again).[/quote]

You mean the role of a hp sponge? But I just wanted to play a thief or a mage (repectively). And yes stats kinda undermined it, unless you are into power-fantasy thing ("Born to roflstomp!"). Again those classes are defined by what they can do - their abilities. Stats are of secondary importance, and certainly having bloated numbers didn't contribute greately to the sense of urgency, adventure or danger... That in the end it came to dice rolls which I find to be an unfortunate limitation - completely redundant in most cases. What is more in the case of Warhorse, they may undermine the "realism" the devs are aiming at. Getting rid of needless stats may be exactly what they should do.

One more time: RPGs are not *about* stats. It's stats that *serve* RPGs. If you can find a better "servant" i.e. better means to reflect character progression and create the sense of adventure in a chosen setting, then you just may be doing something right.

Now, whether Dan Vávra achieves that with his own approach is... bold, to say the least. The history is full of failures in that direction. We'll wait and see.

 

[Sergiu64]

Immersion is good, but I'd much prefer to click on an enemy once and have my char auto defeat the enemy on his own using realistic looking skills according to the awesome build I've leveled him up on rather than having to learn button mashing combos & timing tricks that work in this particular game. But hey, to each their own and I hope the game ends up a great one, even if it won't trying to cater to my version of the ideal.

Hell, sometimes the setting, area design and mechanics can outshine everything else. For example the Thief series wasn't anything I would normally enjoy playing if I only looked on gameplay mechanisms, but the setting and the way it was presented made me drool for the next mission's cut-scene and the complitionist in me made me explore side passages to find the extra loot and cool places to check out.

 

[Smejki]

And BTW Fallout New Vegas is my favourite RPG. I had "medieval" of fantasy games in mind when I was speaking about "western RPGs"

Gothic series was made in Asia? There were plenty of open world games that did things much earlier or better than TES, the Ultima Series did NPCs who follow routines almost two decades before "Radiant AI".

Gothic was never a huge AAA project and when it tried (G3, Arcania) it failed ultimately

 

[Excidium]

So what?

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

So Skyrim is the biggest and best open world western fantasy rpg, which is what i basically tried to say.

 

[Ogg]

It would really be helpful, if you actually read what I wrote, before you answer. If you did, you would probably not whine about the stuff I havent said.

I thought I was courteously asking you a small element of information about your game. But obviously you don't have anything to say about gameplay since you most certainly only worked on the quality of the apple pie design during the last two years of development. Fair enough. Gameplay is not that important in a game anyway.

Also, you want me to quote you line by line and show how little you know about what you're talking? There you go:
-In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him.
Wow ! That's a great piece of opinion here! Very... opinionated, sure. Except it's not what an RPG is. An RPG is a game (you got that part right) were you play a role (that part was ok too) an controls him. He doesn't become him. That's stupid. How could I become a guy that throw fireball from the tip of my fingers.
-The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper.
May I repeat: An RPG doesn't need to be deeper to be an RPG.
-I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well.
Let's be honest, that part I liked. That's why I somehow paraphrased it before asking my question you obviously have no wish to answer ("In an RPG, you not only play a role, but you also somehow define that role, by your actions, decisions, choice of character, stats, skills...")
-Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something
How good the player is at using a morgenstern? Let me guess: he sucks. But maybe his character is an expert. If he's playing an RPG, that is.
-because he cant feel his body (strenght)
In the old game evolva, your character grew larger when it got stronger, its legs grew longer when it learned to jump higher... And it sure wasn't an RPG.
-some other values could be represented visually and realtime
like what? you're Alt button gets bigger when your straffing skills improve?
-because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started
you know that RPG exist outside of the computer world right?
-but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.
Ok there are stats and numbers. But what influence do I have on those stats? Doom also had stats that the player doesnt see (the shotgun does 10 blurbs of damage, the double barrel shotgun does 20 blurbs of damage, the BFG does 1000 blurbs of damage...). Talk about a revolution
-In the old days, it was just not possible to make a fencing simulator
Die by the sword. And that's not what I'm wishing you. That's one of those games they did in the (not so) old days that didn't use dice rolls but still had some hidden stats, I'm certain. Still, noone ever claimed it was an RPG.
-so it was "simulated" with dice throws and some rules
you know that not all RPG use dice throws, right? They all have rue though :/
-But in the real world, fencing is skill based
You don't say! And if I want to try myself at real life fencing, I'll go to a real life fencing club. Thank you.
-if I want to play the role of a swordsman, it only makes sense, that the game will ask me to show some skill
That's why when I play chess, the game will ask me to show some mounting skills before letting me move my knight. It only makes sense.
-Problem is, that fencing is hard, I can tell you, I had few fencing lessons
Your life is sure fascinating but I don't think it's relevant.
-so since the game is done for entertainment purposes
You're right, I should have read your answer more cautiously. There are many words of great wisdom here.
-it will make the fencing much easier, but will still require some skill. What is wrong with that?
Sorry, nothing to add here.
-There is still huge difference between action game and rpg game combat.
I'm certain of that. But I don't know if you see how different they actually are.
-My character still has lots of stats that affect the combat (strenght, agility, stamina, perks....)
Okay, but what input do the plyer have on these stats? There are stats in every videogame. In mafia, I'm sure that some cars had better speed and some had better stability. That's not what makes an RPG an RPG! What does the player can do to increase his stats? How different two characters can be? If the game is skill based, a player with good strafing/aiming skills will be able to play as an archer while if the game is a real RPG, only a character with good archery stats/skills/competences/equipement will be able to play this kind of role.
-I have lot of equipment that I modified
Okay, that's a starting point. Equipment will have some impact. I liked that part, that's why I somehow paraphrased it before asking my question you obviously have no wish to answer (see supra)
-But anyone has different tastes
"that's an orange" - "no, that's a banana" - "oh, I guess anyone has different tastes"
We obviously don't have the same definition of what makes an RPG (though to be fair, I don't think you have any idea of what it is, for that kind of wisdom is reserved to the crazy lunatics that have haunted this forum for more than 5 years. Yep, that's mandatory). So to clarify if your game belongs to the category I call RPG (which to be fair is a pretty large category that includes Deus Ex and Alpha Protocol, yep), I was asking you a simple question:
how different will two characters play?

 

[Severian Silk]

My unsubstantiated fears are that Kickstarter will become a tool from big-name publishers to get free venture capital without the hassle of shareholders.

Most unlikely. In the end kickstarter is auto-regulated, people won't see the need to be "patrons" to big name publishers, neither will they see the point of pre-buying a game 1-3 years before release, especially for the same olds AAA military shooters. On the other side of things I don't see devs agreeing to be strawman of big publishers, it would basically be the worst of both worlds for them.

Never underestimate how stupid people can be. Never.

 

[Ogg]

What is mandatory though is the prevalence of character skills over player skills.

Who said so ? you

I come from a PnP background. And I've never seen even an inch of player skill in any RPG I played on table. In CRPG, I learned to understand (and sometimes to appreciate) that some player skills were required. That was an intrusion of some new kind of gameplay in what was an age long formula. I'm ok with this novelty. But at its core, an RPG, is still what it was at its beginning. The player decide what his character will do and the outcome of the action is, to some extent, decided by whatever rule system you're using. Most videogames aren't RPG. I took the examples of Super Mario and Gran Turismo. I could take the example of Far Cry 3. That's a game I enjoyed actually. It has some RPG elements, but overall, my character was exactly the same as my best friend's character. Customisation of skills is most streamlined and you end up acquiring all the available skills and equipment. More importantly, the most important factor in determining your success is wether or not you can move quick and aim fast. And when I say "you", I mean the player. That's what makes this game a good shooter actually. And that's also what makes it not-an-RPG.

Hhhh, if only role didn't have so many meanings. In Role Playing Game, "role" can be understood as in "this actor is playing his role fabulously" but it also should be understood as in "who plays the role of the rogue? we need one to detect traps"

And please spare me the strawman argument "if the player skill is involved in the slightest your are no longer playing a role anymore". You are not playing yourself when you mouse-click to slash with your sword seriously, that's still a game mechanism (one you like far less than TB combat, we got that).

Don't throw me the straw man card. You're the one who deformed my words! (Or didn't understand them, I give you the benefit of the doubt: you may not be dishonest, you may just be a moron).

What if the game has stats like Dex, Str, Charisma, Hit points, has combat and non-combat skills & spells, levels and experience, C&C, well writen dialogues and so on and so on, will it not qualifies as an RPG ? And again, i'm not saying it will

Of course it will be an RPG. Or more precisely, it will be if the game uses those stats and skills and if the C&C are real and not cosmetic. Well written dialogues have nothing to do with RPG though. You really spoiled your argument here.

Also, for your edification: "Just because a game is not a top-down TB RPG dosen't make it a friggin First Person Shooter." That's a straw man argument.

 

[Smejki]

So what?

TES is the only western open world RPG on the playground. An evidence of this is the success regardless of its flaws. Repeated for years. There is nearly no competition so Bethesda is not pushed to improve (ArmA is in the same situation in its field, it just doesn't sell millions).

So "worth mentioning" doesn't include all RPGs ever made in the West regardless of production level and financial success. It also, in the context of the interview, means recent games are taken into account. Gothic is dead for years and will problably remain so. Risen is much more recent and is a spiritual succesor to Gothic. Would you consider it worth mentioning when someone speaks about best selling AAA games and most succesful games of the specific (sub)genre?
Dan only kinda forgot to mention New Vegas at this point and he admitted this. But this is also the only relevant Fallout. The old ones are a deep history and F3 is just a postapo TES game design-wise so it falls under the Skyrim.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

I will just answer that stats part. HOLY FUCK! OF COURSE THAT YOU ARE DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS! THATS THE REASON WHY IT IS AN RPG! ITS AN RPG - YOU ARE GETTING BETER! HOW? SURPRISINGLY BY DOING STUFF AND LEARNING. What a surprise! Maybe when you want to talk with other people, its a good start not to take them as retarded idiots. Because all this is totally obvious from what i have said here. Seems that you just want to argue so about that archer - yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller, yes some people will be better at this than others, but since its an rpg and strenght is very important for shooting the longbow, the bigger your strenght, the bigger os the damage, you will shoot further, it will take less stamina and your hands will be shaking a less, which will make the aiming easier. Just like in real life. Have you ever tried to shoot a longbow? I did and it works just like that.

 

[Ogg]

That's one of my point: in RT games, strategy usually end up only being about maneuvering (in most case, it's just moving around quckly just to avoid your enemies' attacks). That's where TB and phase based game seems more tactical to me.

Which is extremely ironic because real-life tactics is all about maneuvering. In fact the chief line in favour of party-based TB RPGs is that they allow greater degree of maneuver control than RT counterparts. Then again RT, single character RPGs excel at just that.

"maneuvering (in most case, it's just moving around quckly just to avoid your enemies' attacks)"
You really need to take the time and read.

Enemy speed vs. your speed. For example, the player should not be able to outrun (and kite) a bear, which is much faster over long distances. No kiting for you in that case. So how about put stats there and resign from "to hit" rolls?

That's an idea. Not sure what it would end up like. But that's something I would consider, yes. At least that's a gameplay element we can talk about and it's not "we couldn't do it in the past cause computer weren't powerful enough" like the Czech guy wrote.

That's fair enough, because stats never create gameplay. In other words you are overestimating their importance.

You realise that anyway, the game will use stats, right? I'm certain that a small sword will do less damage than a claymore.

Well, it will have to be a skill with something, right? Also, it's not like he promised a tactical wargame? Or did he?

Should I really remind you that RPGs are derivated from wargame? If the RPG has a strong combat component and it claims to be an RPG, I expect an minimum of tactics, yes. But of course, it may not be a game focused on combat. Who knows? (maybe the developer but he won't tell us.)

You mean the role of a hp sponge? But I just wanted to play a thief or a mage (repectively). And yes stats kinda undermined it, unless you are into power-fantasy thing ("Born to roflstomp!"). Again those classes are defined by what they can do - their abilities. Stats are of secondary importance, and certainly having bloated numbers didn't contribute greately to the sense of urgency, adventure or danger... That in the end it came to dice rolls which I find to be an unfortunate limitation - completely redundant in most cases. What is more in the case of Warhorse, they may undermine the "realism" the devs are aiming at. Getting rid of needless stats may be exactly what they should do.

The problem here wasn't that there were stats. The probleme was that the game was not balanced well after the 15th level. Game imbalance can happen in all kinds of games.

One more time: RPGs are not *about* stats. It's stats that *serve* RPGs. If you can find a better "servant" i.e. better means to reflect character progression and create the sense of adventure in a chosen setting, then you just may be doing something right.

The Czech guy didn't say he wouldn't use stats. He said they wouldn't be visible. That's not a novelty.

 

[Ogg]

I will just answer that stats part. HOLY FUCK! OF COURSE THAT YOU ARE DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS! THATS THE REASON WHY IT IS AN RPG! ITS AN RPG - YOU ARE GETTING BETER! HOW? SURPRISINGLY BY DOING STUFF AND LEARNING. What a surprise! Maybe when you want to talk with other people, its a good start not to take them as retarded idiots. Because all this is totally obvious from what i have said here. Seems that you just want to argue so about that archer - yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller, yes some people will be better at this than others, but since its an rpg and strenght is very important for shooting the longbow, the bigger your strenght, the bigger os the damage, you will shoot further, it will take less stamina and your hands will be shaking a less, which will make the aiming easier. Just like in real life. Have you ever tried to shoot a longbow? I did and it works just like that.

First, you're the one who held me for a moron when telling me to read your post before answering. Butthurt? Me? Maybe. But more importantly, I had a legitimate question that I wanted to ask. And I hoped that you would be able to answer it. (now, I'm not sure you've put much thought on your gamesystem and thus can't answer it, but that's just my eternal pessimism).

I didn't ask if you could develop your skills and if you would get better! I asked what kind of difference we could expect between two characters!

Also, who is getting better? The player or the character? (I'm just trolling here, but I somehow think you don't see the difference)

I didn't take you for a retard at first. But now, I have some reason to believe that you are! Your failing at understanding what I'm writing (despite multiple reformulations) is astounding.

At first, I defended your efforts at developing a realistic historical setting, but seeing how little research you did on RPGs, I don't have any reason to believe you will have done any more research on the middle ages (apart from your most valuable experience at playing with swords and bows, yes, most impressive. You're a big boy now)

 

[mindx2]

yes you have to aim, yes you have to do it with your controller,