sawyer wants rpg to evolve

[Ulfhednar]

JS: I can't do innovation in my games because of my fans.
RK: We made an innovative game, but we're not sure it has any fans.
JS: Cool story bro.

 

[Sigourn]

It sounds to me that people aren't against the game because it is not a troo RPG, but because it doesn't have tactical combat. That's a whole different, legitimate issue to have with a game. I don't find 2D action RPGs appealing, for instance.

 

[Mustawd]

I posted this elsewhere, but thought the discussion of RPGs evolving and the upcoming release of Disco Elysium (DE) are relevant. For the record, as long as DE markets itself as an RPG, I am rooting against it. I hope it does not succeed commercially. Anyhow, here is my spiel.

Yes. Games without combat are not cRPGs. Many games and genres are increasingly adding RPG-like elements.

Now do I dislike the devs of Disco Elysium or the game? No. I actually think the game looks beautiful and the narrative resolution of conflict makes this adventure game interesting.

My problem with them calling this an rpg, as well as we as a broader community accepting that definition, is that it dilutes what a crpg is in a way that no other game has before it. Sure, action rpgs have blurred the lines ever since Diablo 1, as player reaction became the biggest component instead of the system's stats and abilities.

However, combat was always a mainstay, regardless if it was executed by action or by being turn based. Let's not forget, the earliest cRPGs were almost exclusively combat. With each member in the party playing its own role in order to defeat enemies.

What DE has done is to say that the resolution of conflict is no longer tied to combat. Which is a huge leap. It opens the doors for almost any game with stats to now be considered a cRPG. Hence, my point with the discussion with sports games. They have every element of Disco Eleysium, including non-combat conflict resolution.

The other poster's argument about jobs vs roles is merely semantics. With a full story mode, cutscenes, C&C, stats, and non-combat conflict resolution, Madden is just as much an RPG as Disco Elysium is.

IF of course you buy into DE being an RPG. Which I do not. And since they've decided to market themselves as that, it's my opinion that the genre is best served if this game doe snot succeed commercially. That's just my opinion. There's no malice or edginess here.

EDIT: And I understand narrative resolution already exists in cRPGs. However, if you were to isolate those parts and get rid of combat completely, I'd find it difficult to call it an RPG. Think if AoD was merely the talkie character classes, and all semblance of combat was removed.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[FreeKaner]

mustawd. the modern games you talk about which has "RPG elements" are all combat no RPG my friend.

There is this false narrative being pushed as if the decline is caused by RPGs not having combat, meanwhile the reality of the situation is all modern action games that has "RPG elements" merely copy the stats and the combat while none of the RPG.

 

[Mustawd]

mustawd. the modern games you talk about which has "RPG elements" are all combat no RPG my friend.

There is this false narrative being pushed as if the decline is caused by RPGs not having combat, meanwhile the reality of the situation is all modern action games that has "RPG elements" merely copy the stats and the combat while none of the RPG.

Prey is number two on our RPG GOTY for 2017. Although it's described on Wikipedia (and I assume the game's marketing as well) as:

Prey is a survival horror first-person shooter with role-playing and stealth elements with strong narrative set in an open world environment.

This is what I mean in terms of how the genre is becoming almost meaningless.

Side 1: RPGs MUST have combat and that combat MUST be base don stats!
Side 2: Screw Combat, RPGs are all about playing a role TM!

And I'm not even discussing preference here. Sure we all have our preference. But my point is that removing combat is basically taking an adventure game like Primordia, and adding stats and some narrative conflict resolution. Viola, it's now an RPG, for some reason.

EDIT: If games like Madden, Prey, and Disco Elysium becoming RPGs is this so-called "evolution", well then no thanks.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

cRPG stuff.

The centrality of combat reflects what most cRPG players want, not the defining characteristic of the genre, but is also undeniable that it makes for better gameplay. The limitations of resources and the superficiality of present non-combat systems make dialogue and C&C pale in comparison to tactical cRPGs. It would be surprising if most cRPG’s were not combat oriented given that most PnP campaigns revolve around combat. It’s a brute fact that it’s neither good or bad, it’s simply is. Now, that reasoning is a double-edged sword, because I know some PnP players who don’t care about combat, and we see more and more illiterate cRPGs that only want C&C and story and hate stats. You can’t simply dismiss these players either because that’s also a preference allowed by the genre. I’m just not so sure that it has the following that their enthusiasts would want us to believe. The T:ToN fiasco suggests that this people live in a bubble of game journalists and storyfags that don’t reflect the preferences and beliefs of most players, and protect them from feedback. On the other hand the success of Undertale and other storyfag games suggest that there is some market for it, but I’m not sure. I don’t think that the CYOA genre is very profitable, is it? Does anyone here have the numbers? Perhaps the problem of Torment was the low frequency of combat? T:ToN has combat, but not much. Disco Elysium will have combat, but not much, and the few fights seem to be presented in a narrative style too.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Mustawd]

Now, that reasoning is a double-edged sword, because I know some PnP players who don’t care about combat, and we see more and more illiterate cRPGs that only want C&C and story and hate stats. You can’t simply dismiss these players either because that’s also a preference allowed by the genre.

Well, for me, those same enthusiasts already have a genre or genres that service this. It's called a visual novel or an adventure game or a combination of both. And to me things like DE fall in line with a combo of both adventure games and visual novels, with some rpg elements added on to it.

 

[Mustawd]

lazdy gms added combat as filler to their campaigns. You can create a long story that will be resolved by few skil checks, while combat with few goblins will last a bit(unless you have Gregz in your group).
Same like dice were added to shift blame away from gms in case you do stupid stuff and your character dies

Well, we're not talking PnP, so I don't think pointing to combatless PnP really helps your argument. In PnP you also don't control an entire party or a variety of other things crpgs do that PnP does not.

 

[FreeKaner]

The reality is that a visual novel is closer to a PNP experience than a Diablo which has stats, items, isometric view and all that.

 

[FeelTheRads]

lazdy gms added combat as filler to their campaigns. You can create a long story that will be resolved by few skil checks, while combat with few goblins will last a bit(unless you have Gregz in your group).
Same like dice were added to shift blame away from gms in case you do stupid stuff and your character dies

So, not only combat is unneeded, but also skill checks and even die rolls.

From this we can conclude that playing an RPG = reading a story.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Infinitron]

A relatively new theory is that "CRPGs" as a holistic video game genre codified by a specific set of mechanics don't really exist.

Instead "RPG" can be viewed as a thing that games do. An isometric tactical combat game that is an RPG. A first person shooter that is an RPG. And so on.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

So, not only combat is unneeded, but also skill checks and even die rolls.

you got it wrong, skill checks are needed, but dice rolls not.
Yes, CYOAs are true rpgs

Well, we're not talking PnP, so I don't think pointing to combatless PnP really helps your argument. In PnP you also don't control an entire party or a variety of other things crpgs do that PnP does not.

so now its only rpg if entire party is involved?

Pnp was brought up 1 post above mine. Since crpgs evolved from pnp, a bunch of codex top rpgs are based on pnp rules then its only natural that you bring pnp into discussion.

I think this whole discussion goes back to PnP really.

People like Sawyer are clearly tabletop enthusiasts and he specifically comes from a style of play ("narrativism,") where the players can spend the entire night role-playing their characters in the tavern or negotiating deals at the marketplace and still consider it a good game session. Most players expect some fighting and looting and leveling, so that's a style of gameplay that is already a niche-within-a-niche and not even really relevant to the cRPG discussion.

That's why he said he likes Dogs in the Vineyard (A classic example of a narrativist game) and Darklands, which many consider to be the closest approximation of PnP gameplay into computer form.

PnP and computer RPGs have long since split, gone their separate ways, and that is that. cRPGs are combat games, because clearly every cRPG is a combat game. What Sawyer wants is to implement his style of tabletop gaming into cRPGs, which may not even be possible. In a tabletop game you can approach every situation as a unique scenario and use improvisational problem-solving (a combination of skill, tools, wits, and luck) to overcome it, while a DM reacts and builds drama and tension to heighten the fun. cRPGs kinda-sorta do that but not really that well, not as well as you can in a free-form tabletop game with a human DM.

Sawyer's attitude is to lament that game developers simply haven't tried hard enough, and pretend like the last 15 years never happened.

 

[Mustawd]

Pnp was brought up 1 post above mine. Since crpgs evolved from pnp, a bunch of codex top rpgs are based on pnp rules then its only natural that you bring pnp into discussion.

I know why you mentioned it. I'm just saying it doesn't really help your argument here.

so now its only rpg if entire party is involved?

No I was trying to draw a comparison between some games we actually call CRPGs, say ToEE or Baldur's Gate, and compare them to their PnP counterpart (D&D editions). And what I'm saying is that even base don the same ruleset, a CRPG and a PnP RPG are different.

I'm not saying a single char game cannot be a cRPG.

A relatively new theory is that "CRPGs" as a holistic video game genre codified by a specific set of game mechanics don't really exist.

Instead "RPG" can be viewed as a thing that games do. An isometric tactical combat game that is an RPG. A first person shooter that is an RPG. And so on.

Man that game RPG'ed so well!


Sounds retarded as hell. Also, are we saying Madden can RPG? That just sounds so weird. Who is talking about this new theory?

 

[FeelTheRads]

So, not only combat is unneeded, but also skill checks and even die rolls.

you got it wrong, skill checks are needed, but dice rolls not.
Yes, CYOAs are true rpgs

No, they are not.

Even if you subscribe to the limited and honestly retarded view that an RPG is anything where you have an open narrative, CYOAs are limited by the paths that have been written. They're not in any way like a PnP session where you can come up with solutions and the GM can come up with challenges on the fly. Playing a CYOA is simply going through preset, linear paths. Which is what playing AoD also is.

 

[Glaucon]

Glaucon

The problem is that you are treating one central elements of role-playing as a pragmatic device instead of an integral aspect of gameplay. The use of skills and attributes to create your characters is not just one of the many uses, it’s essential to the type of experience involved. The creation of your character is already gameplay. You think it isn’t because you are relying too much in the literal meaning of the words at the expanse of the real thing. You can interpret a character without stats and call this a role-playing experience, but that’s a completely different thing, for the same reason that acting has nothing to do with RPGs. Your concession that stats and skills are “logistically and economically unavoidable” to “deep, meaningful gameplay” seems like a cop-out you had to resort with some discomfort because it can’t barely conceal the fact that they are essential to the genre.

You mention that we are in the middle of history, but that’s irrelevant to the issue because whatever it is the type of game that a RPG is, it won't change with time by the arbitrary decisions of PnP designers, in the same way that the nature of art or journalism can’t change with time by the arbitrary decisions of artists and journalists. The thing has an essence of its own. If you think any different is because you are assuming a corrosive institutionalism in which the nature of something is whatever its practitioners conventioned to be. When you think that way it’s obvious that it seems so natural to say that PnP RPGs are changing because you are packing a bunch of stuff that has the same label on it and throwing in the discussion, but that’s the wrong way of looking at things. cRPGs were conceived as attempts to implement one type of PnP experience, where stats and skills are essential to gameplay. Thinking that cRPGs mean something else because there are different PnP games that don’t follow this routine is shallow reasoning obsessed by etymology instead of paying attention to the realities of the gameplay you want to implement.

This is a pointless circle that we're running in. The point isn't etymology. Roleplaying is what roleplaying games are about, my own direct experience of playing them myself, with others, and reading other people's opinions tells me this. Roleplaying is the essence of the RPG. To put it another way, printed paper isn't essential to journalism. There are many different mechanics that RPG designers have developed to create RPGs. There is no reason way to simply select out of them the perfect set of mechanics that encapsulates RPGs--or to preemptively exclude new mechanics or the appropriation of mechanics from other types of games. One has to make an attempt to see what those various mechanics are trying to achieve (the testimony of game designers helps in this regard is helpful). You can disagree. But my own interpretation doesn't exclude the particular implementation of RPGs you have in mind--it's just that the video game industry is inevitably moving away from this.

Also, sufficiently strict LARPing with very imaginative people is the same as playing an RPG (but to be sufficiently strict--invent a world, rules of play ,etc--you would inevitably just produce a PnP ruleset.)

 

[FeelTheRads]

There is no reason way to simply select out of them the perfect set of mechanics that encapsulates RPGs-

But you can do that with what you call the "essence of RPGs" and exclude anything else, right?

it's just that the video game industry is inevitably moving away from this.

So.... was that supposed to go anywhere or what are wesupposed to get from this? Accept and embrace anything they slap the RPG label on because that's what they do, or what?

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

What exactly do you define as non-narrative choices without meaningful impact? Would you count the decision of how to tackle a level in Deus Ex as such? Because Deus Ex offers you a couple of levels where the way you approach it doesn't really change the story, but provides a different gameplay experience and a different form of challenge.

Of course, and I wouldn’t be obtuse to deny the importance of non-narrative gameplay, but the point remains that cRPG players are so used to this mindset that narrative gameplay is promptly ignored as a CYOA thing. It’s an inversion of values, because narrative gameplay should be an important aspect of cRPGs, even if this implies more passive gameplay. You can’t allow the player to make many important choices without resorting to dialogue trees and text-adventures because that would be too time consuming. There is no way of implementing this level of reactivity without text-adventures and scripted scenarios.

The fact about AoD is that most choices will lock you into a certain path, which some people perceive as being railroaded. The way AoD loves to teleport the player straight to a location rather than letting him walk there himself also contributes to that feeling. While Vince had a good reason for the frequent teleports - he wanted to cut out the boring parts where you walk from A to B - they make the game feel more like a CYOA to many people, because they often take away some amount of player agency. There's often no option to say "No, fuck you, I'm not going to follow you out of town now I'm going to stay a while and dick around a bit more", instead you get told "Well after your actions here the guards are out to get you so you better leave the city ASAP" and are teleported out, with no say in the matter. Even a choice like saying "So? Let the guards come, I'm not afraid." and then throwing an unwinnable fight at the player would make the player feel more in control. It's not a double standard, because no other RPG teleports you out of a location as frequently as AoD does.

Because the game offers more long-term effects and reactions that require different scenes, and they work better with teleports, e.g., if you fix the smelter the Aurelian guards will take you with them to Maadoran; saying “hey guys, sorry, I just clicked on this option without reading it to see some cool shit happening but I don't want to be dragged with this whole expedition as a result because that would be railroading” makes no sense whatsoever, and it’s important that we have a developer that cares about these little details and don’t bent the rules as things unfold. It amazes me how many players made this specific complaint without admitting that they didn’t read what they were clicking on and persisted in ignoring the developer rationale afterwards, because they don’t care if he was trying to makes things more real and interesting. What pisses me off is not that some players don’t like this, but that they don’t stop to think what is the merit in this type of choice and disregard it with fake arguments and superficial derogatory terms. There is a lot of misunderstanding going on. The game is offering you more impact, not less; but since most cRPG players were brainwashed into thinking that cRPG is all about filler gameplay and repetitive tasks they feel restricted. So they prefer to spend 20 mins walking from point A to point B to deliver a message because that’s what is perceived as a good gameplay. They view cRPG as a sort of therapy where you do a bunch of tasks without meaning to pass the time. I’m not saying that being active isn’t important, it is, but dismissing any attempt to implement deep choices because of this, and claiming that the game is nothing but this is a caricature motivated by entrenched prejudices. Besides, like most criticisms directed to AoD, this teleport thing is overblown, caricatural and taking out of context. In only two or three instances they are mandatory. In the other instances you have the option to walk on foot.

I'm merely criticizing its relatively rigid structure. … The overall result is that the game's structure feels rather rigid, more like a CYOA that leads you from one choice event to the next, instead of a more traditional RPG where you explore on your own and occasionally get to make a choice when you encounter one.

Ok, but ask yourself. Why is this structure perceived as rigid? What does “rigid” means in this discussion? What is happening is this: the developer invested a lot of time thinking about the details of the characters and factions in the gameworld and implemented some of the most plausible options. You could tell from a mile that this would generate endless amount of butthurt because gamers were spoiled by a whole generation of mediocre developers. They basically want to kill everything that moves and do whatever the hell they want. Now, not only they can’t, but they also need to listen to the many things they can because of such and such of this faction and that other reason. They would easily accept a linear game with no choices, but they can’t accept a C&C game that restrict some choices because they don’t give a rat’s ass about realism, because developers are either too lazy, or dumb, or pussies to implement any resemblance of rules in their gameworlds. So when you are complaining about rigidity what you are really criticising is realism and plausibility. I’m not saying that you are wrong. It could be that this trade-off between feeling in charge and realism is not worth it or justified on conceptual grounds, but there is a big difference between blank statements about rigid structure taken out of contexts and whether we should be considering a trade off between realism and freedom. The first is impossible to refute because no one thinks that rigidity is a good thing, but the last one is a much more complicated issue because cRPGs are simulationist by vocation, it is in their DNA to simulate abilities and skills in a gameworld. You are not taking this discussion seriously enough until you engage in this conceptual trade offs and express our presuppositions in an explicit manner. I would say that the design questions are as much interesting as the game itself.

To me, the ideal quest is one where the designer has put some thought into designing an area - be it a dungeon or something similar - and the goals the player might want to reach in that area in a way that allows for every possible realistic approach - within the constraints of the game's mechanics - to be attempted either successfully or unsuccessfully. … Of course, a quest like this should offer multiple approaches, some of which have a higher chance for success than others.

Your game seems really cool, Jarl. I will definitely buy after the release. I think everybody wants open design, but here are a few problems you need to consider. The solution is to offer quests whose solution is compatible with multiple allocations of stat/skills, but in reality that never happens because there are restrictions in place that will prevent you from doing certain things. It doesn’t matter how clever you are in conceiving the quest, in order to guarantee that most stat/skill are useful you need to ignore how the world works. That’s a problem to discuss. It doesn’t matter how forgiving or open minded you think you are. Players will feel frustrated because they are inherently prejudiced against failed checks.

Here is another problem. The arbitrary look of stat/skill checks. Players hate failing because they lacked one specific number. “Why do I need 4 points in lockpicking? Why not 3?” It feels insulting and inherently unjust to fail because you don’t have one particular number, because this particular number is just one of the many ways to interpret the difficult of the task at hand. This can lead to hoarding skill points and reloading, and players are not used to this. If the task at hand requires a combination of stats and skills the butthurt is even worse.

This is made worse by negativity bias. People are more affected by negative experiences than positive, so one single failure is sufficient to install an image of negativity that is impervious to further evidence. I can show you that in many quests of AoD there are non-optimal fail-and-go scenarios, and players will ignore the evidence and persist on their complaints that they feel that “there's really just one optimal character build”, which is never the case. This is even ironic because playing the game blindly is a very surprising and rewarding experience in its own right. You miss a lot of content if you don’t fail in the proper manner.

But how many skills should we implement to make quest design both compelling and open? What kind of skills should we implement? It seems that most players want a variety of skills and their insurance that they will be useful, but can’t be all equally useful in a compelling world. Maybe we would all benefit with the implementation of less, but more central skills. This would make the implementation of open quest design more doable. Less can be more. Developers need to think more about their choice of skills, instead of insisting on cargo cult.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Well, for me, those same enthusiasts already have a genre or genres that service this. It's called a visual novel or an adventure game or a combination of both. And to me things like DE fall in line with a combo of both adventure games and visual novels, with some rpg elements added on to it.

It's not the same thing at al because in a CYOA game you have predefined builds set in stone, no character model, no exploration, etc. It is also simplistic to bring adventure games in this discussion because they are a completely different genre. The structure of gameplay is entirely different from both CYOA and C&C cRPGs.

 

[FeelTheRads]

CYOAs (cRPGs, which you failed to add) got limits while pnp sessions are open. news at 11

In that case, don't make CYOAs and call them RPGs, because they are not.

or any crpg for that matter as ive stated

Yes, if for you an RPG is choosing from a list of possible, scripted paths.

In fact, when you have an actual system in place and let the player use their character skills on his own is actually much closer to a PnP experience than presenting him with a list of choices.

would you say that he didnt play rpg even if game itself is rpg

Exactly. He played a CYOA. Which is not an RPG.

Same for Fallout2 really

Except it's not the same at all. If you remove the combat from Fallout 2, you still have to explore and solve problems and use skill checks on your own without having the game list them in front of you. Therefore-> F2 is an RPG, CYOAs are not RPGs.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Except it's not the same at all. If you remove the combat from Fallout 2, you still have to explore and solve problems and use skill checks on your own without having the game list them in front of you. Therefore-> F2 is an RPG, CYOAs are not RPGs.

Oh, please. Give me a fucking break. Now only the skill checks of FO2 are good? What is so special about them that AoD doesn't have? Oh, I got. They were the result of Tim Cain's brain, and that's cRPG by default. The hypocrisy and double standards are appalling.