The Ten CRPG Commandments

[Stark]

I side with Taoreich. TB or RT, type of combat is irrelevant to the role-playing aspect.

TB has certain advantages over RT, but RT combat, done correctly, can be fun too.

Thou shalt NOT have any quests so dependent on certain NPCs that they needeth be invulnerable to attack.

i don't understand why the need for ability to kill "everyone" in the game. u're role-playing and in most cases u don't go and kill everyone in sight, and if u're really role-playing, u'll definately not go killing important NPC that u know will play a major role for u later in the game.

besides, i imagine it's nightmare for designer to make sure all quests are not dependant on any single key NPC.

Vault Dweller,

i find the example u cite on gun slinger vs knife guy is abit counter-productive. the set up of the example is pretty tense, but in TB execution the knife guy got the initiative to act first and he can take all the time in the world to throw out his knife.

I'm all for TB combat in game, but just pointing out the example u cited is abit lame when one really thinks about it in actual execution.

 

[Stark]

oh, and no romance please. all the romance plots in RPGs thus far are pretty lame.

though it doesn't mean done correctly, romance plot can add a great deal of immersion to the game.

 

[Sigurd]

Thou shalt NOT have any quests so dependent on certain NPCs that they needeth be invulnerable to attack.

i don't understand why the need for ability to kill "everyone" in the game.

Why not? I hate to harp on "realism," but it'd be pretty friggin wierd if you shot some guy in the face and nothing happened.

u're role-playing and in most cases u don't go and kill everyone in sight, and if u're really role-playing, u'll definately not go killing important NPC that u know will play a major role for u later in the game.

What if you want to kill everything in site? Role-playing a murderous psychopath can be fun sometimes.

besides, i imagine it's nightmare for designer to make sure all quests are not dependant on any single key NPC.

Why would it be a nightmare? If you kil the key NPC, you fail the quest. Simple and easy. If the quest is integral to the game-end, you lose the game. Also easy.

oh, and no romance please. all the romance plots in RPGs thus far are pretty lame.

WHAT? You're saying the romance of marrying the chick from Modoc in Fallout 2 was lame? Blasphemy! And what about Raven in Arcanum? I was really feeling it when I chose the dialogue option to tell her that she was more beautiful than the water in Caladon.

 

[Stark]

I suppose i never tried the option of killing NPCs. I agree that all NPCs should be killable, and once killed the quest is failed. I was referring to this:

Thou shalt NOT have any quests so dependent on certain NPCs that they needeth be invulnerable to attack.

I took it that it meant quest will still be completable even if key NPC is killed.

And what about Raven in Arcanum? I was really feeling it when I chose the dialogue option to tell her that she was more beautiful than the water in Caladon

err... u were kidding right?

i suppose romance option done right can be involving, but i suppose most game producers are not good writers to begin with. usually romance options in RPG tend to be lame, and awkward.

i remembered keeping Jaiheira in BG2 and put up with "romancing" with her, not daring to reject her "advances" for fear of losing her (I needed a good druid in my party at that time) and felt like sh*t evertime i was "forced" into romantic conversation with her.... urghh... it felt really terrible.

 

[Anonymous]

You suck if you make game ending NPC deaths like that, doubly so if you make them immortal. There should always be other ways.

 

[Sigurd]

and felt like sh*t

Did you just radio edit your post? Ha!

evertime i was "forced" into romantic conversation with her.... urghh... it felt really terrible.

I'm glad to speak with an individual who has strong emotional responses to insignificant events in a computer game.

You suck if you make game ending NPC deaths like that, doubly so if you make them immortal. There should always be other ways.

Indeed. In Arcanum, you didn't have to kill Kerghan in the Void. You could just join him instead, and be treated to a weak ending slideshow.

 

[Anonymous]

You had to do a good deal of work to join Kerghan and be inheriently evil (I think) for that option to be available to you, and I thought the evil ending was pretty neat.

But all over Arcanum there was always a second way around things, which is one reason why I like it so much.

 

[Rosh]

I would venture to say that this is part of the apocrypha as opposed to scripture. Say whatever you like about enjoying TB or hating RT, the fact is that TB is the manna of a strategy game, not role-playing. ToEE's combat (which I hold up as one of the better combat models ever) made the game a fun dungeon crawl; it did nothing to increase it's role-playing merit.

Keep in mind that I have in no way advocated RT over TB for RPGs. My point is that the type of combat is irrelevant to the role-playing aspect of the game, although it is a very important aspect as it pertains to general enjoyment.

Wow, a whole lot of declaritive statements, jack shit for reasoning behind it. Amazing straw man logic behind them, too. Wait, you didn't even bother building a straw man, as there's hardly anything to support your claim.

Here it is, in simple terms that I doubt even David Gaider could fail to understand them:

In CRPGs, you're playing the role of one or more characters. Therefore, the character would be the one who is being represented in the game. The player is just the one who makes the decisions, preferably in spirit with their chosen style in playing the character. The character is the physical representation in the game of playing a role through. You know, how the genre came about from adventure mixed with dungeon crawler and while it didn't fit into either genre, it had traits that were common to P&P RPGs and were named such.. A CRPG can be predominantly dungeon crawler in aspect, but that doesn't mean a dungeon-crawler is a CRPG. You can blame part of the fuck-up on Blizzard calling Diablo a CRPG when it's by all rights a dungeon crawler.

P&P RPGs are not action by any means, and it's not for simplicity's sake. It's the natural fitting mechanic into the genre that has been around for quite some time.

And seriously, what is RT play, at best? Clickclickclick-mash potion button-clickclickclick. Or pause, click to issue commands, sit back and drool mindlessly as the combat resolves itself. Okay, what part of that is anything near playing your character? A screensaver for combat? What could be further from the representation of playing a character when you're either rapidly punching buttons or go into a narcoleptic fit?

Therefore, does relying on the player's reflexes represent playing the role of the character? Hardly, since you're not going by the character's abilities and limitations. True, there's no ultimate guiding factor that prevents a stupid character from being compensated for in battle by a smart player, but the opportunity is there for them to play as such.

RT's mechanics, at the ground level, are best suited for action games. They offer nowhere near the depth or capability for the character to be played accurately in combat unless you enjoy a LOT of simplicity.

 

[Anonymous]

A simple idea when it comes to Rolplaying and Turn-Based is that, if your roleplaying your character when he talks, when he quests, when he buys and sells things, when he just exsists, why shouldnt you get to roleplay him during combat, too?

And I dont think that's happening in real-time...

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

I stick to my guns

Turn based has to be one of the commandments. Start supplying more people, we need this bible deely up and runninh.

 

[Taoreich]

snip

Not sure why it's pertinent to point out that I had no strawman in the context that I didn't attempt to provide any justification at all aside from just token vitriol. But that's ok, I appreciate the reasonableness that followed.

Be that as it may, the majority of responses seem to be that TB is a major tenent to role playing because it is superior to RT. This is certainly subject to debate, but it dosen't address my statement that because of the nature of CRPG's combat is primarily metagaming. Whether you prefer intellectual metagaming (TB)or dexerity "twich" metagaming (RT), the fact is that combat forces you to use elements outside of the game itself.

Rosh- you highlighted the RT aspects well, but what about TB? Does the five minutes spent planning the next attack round for one's barbarian tank in ToEE, carefully using the movement guage to best manage all aspects of the turn really represent the 8 intelligence of the character? Straw-man? Sure, but no more so than the RT example. It takes some serious discipline to throw a character into a foolish combat position, inviting all kinds of AoO, just because it's in the nature of the character; who among us can say we actually do this outside of P&P when we have a DM to call "out of character?"

In this context, TB combat is the socialism of CPRG. In theory I concede that it is better suited to role playing, but in practice it's simply not pragmatic to follow in the spirit in which it's meant to be used. As such, though perhaps more elegant, it is no more role playing than button mashing.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

I bet you have red hair, that picture just makes me want to punch my monitor. Im sorry taoreich, but I don't see your point.

TB is roleplaying, from its pnp origins to the greatest games that we have experienced to date. It is the only option if what you are trying to develop is a true rpg.

I haven't played any rpg that has incorporated RT where combat hasn't detracted from the overall flow and enjoyment of a game. And these are games we are talking about you can't exclude combat or it becomes an adventure. Playing a role includes the fight, its not taking you outside of the game environment, its part and parcel with the rest. You can't have one without the other. Hitting someone is a choice just like any other. The game shouldn't force you, at least not too often, but it should always be a choice.

Combat is a staple of all rpgs, and TB is the staple of all True and Truly good rpg's.
As sure as somebody will have amnesia.....

 

[Rosh]

(snip)

I'm sorry, but you expect me to believe that bullshit? I already pointed out to you why it is a more fair representation of role-playing, certainly leagues over RT in inherent capability alone due to the mechanics. Spending five minutes planning your next move is limited by the actions you can take, which are defined by your character's abilities you've earned from playing them - NOT the player's abilities. That is, unless you're the kind of person who needs to take 5 minutes to make a decision of attack, move/attack, special attack, special ability, item ability, defend, use consumable item, etc, and drool like a complete moron.

As for the rest of your post, it looks fairly regurgitated from your initial point and really shows no indication of staying close to what I was discussing. There's truly nothing you've written that could be applicable as a "reply". You've caught onto a couple of easy to understand terms, namely "TB and RT", but you show no understanding of the post otherwise.

 

[Taoreich]

No red hair- not sure of the reference either. so it goes

Anyway, with respect to not addressing your post Rosh, I think you're mistaken. Your point is a fairly simple one: real time is subject to manual dexterity ("click click click") and presumably takes into account the characters attributes in an inferior fashion (which you weren't explicit about but it would support your view). On the other hand, you state that turn based allows the player to maximize the attributes of the character which stays more true to the ability to role play. If you take a look at my reply I concede your point that this works well academically, but in practice the model breaks due to the invocation of outside strategic infuence which is analagous to the twitch aspect of real time.

If you are able to play turn based combat in a fashion unlike a chess game, where your decisions for each character are solely based on their attributes and their backstory and their development and their specific situation in the melee- great, I commend you and further concede that turn based is the ultimate solution. If, however, you are like the majority of humanity and address the combat holisticly (like chess) where you utilize the strengths of one character in the context of another, despite the obstacles to this type of methodical battle tactics for ad hoc encounters (which the majority of encounters are); then you are platying just as much outside the game as the twitch gamers do, just more elegantly, and not role playing in any meaningful way.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Thats where the engine comes in, restricting your possible choices to what your characters construct dictates. Of course you are going to play your characters abilities to the best of your own, thats just common sense. These are after all CRPG's not PnP. It's up to the designer to restrict your skills and abilities based on the choices you have made, no one is going to shoot to miss because his concept of his character would.

Also on the inverse of the scale what if a characters strategic abilities , statistic wise, outweigh your own. How do you roleplay somebody more intelligent, faster and simple better than you are. TB is the only sufficient answer, since it allows you to use your limited abilities to take more time and come up with an acceptable choice.

Nobody role-plays idiots, at least not in all aspects. The vast majority of games are designed to follow a hero, or at the very least somebody who is exceptional. Exceptional talents require the kind of tactical abilities you can express through TB.

I'm not saying that TB creates the ultimate solution, i'm saying its the only solution. RT leaves no room for maneuvering and removes whatever choice you have, one way or the other about your player abilities. It make make it easier to play a guy who likes to get minced by the bad guy, but if you want a skilled and thoughtful character you have to look to TB.

TB simply allows for more choice. Maybe nobody roleplays deficient skill in a character, thats their choice. Choice is what TB is all about, and what in the end RPG's are all about.

 

[Human Shield]

Experience represents combat strategy better then the intelligence stat. At low levels you fight weak enemies, as you gain experience you have more options and the enemies use more tactics. An experienced barbarian will still run around taking "smart" moves in combat even thou his Int 8, he isn't gonna read a book but he can do what he knows best.

 

[Sigurd]

I don't know if anyone else does, but I often do make unwise choices based on the character's background or personality (which I always have distinctly in my head). For example, I decided that my light/heavy weapons expert Brak in Fallout 2 would kill the miners in the bar at Redding, instead of solving the problem diplomatically. Then he took a hit of Jet and went berserk, slaughtering the entire town. Not a good choice as far as the story, quest experience, and alignment goes, but that's what Brak, a ruthless, Jet-addicted, trigger-happy mercenary would do.

 

[Rosh]

No red hair- not sure of the reference either. so it goes

Anyway, with respect to not addressing your post Rosh, I think you're mistaken. Your point is a fairly simple one: real time is subject to manual dexterity ("click click click") and presumably takes into account the characters attributes in an inferior fashion (which you weren't explicit about but it would support your view). On the other hand, you state that turn based allows the player to maximize the attributes of the character which stays more true to the ability to role play. If you take a look at my reply I concede your point that this works well academically, but in practice the model breaks due to the invocation of outside strategic infuence which is analagous to the twitch aspect of real time.

The only way you can state that is if you have absolutely NO CLUE about game mechanics.

Does TB allow playing of your character according to his/her stats? Yes. Does RT? No, it either relies on the player's reflexes or is uninvolving. The point that you're frankly too obtuse to see, is that RT DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE OPTION.

Has that sunk through your thick skull yet? Don't even bother with any more bullshit straw man arguments, they will not work.

 

[Taoreich]

Perhaps my lack of invective or lack of interest in you personally is distracting to you Rosh, so let me make it simpler.

In practice, neither Turn Based nor Real Time provide a true role playing experience and thus neither are critical to role playing.

The characteristics of Turn Based are, more often than not, better suited to role playing than Real Time, but this can be subject to the game context

Better suited != Critical to the form

Continue to opine on how turn based can be preferable due to options. I've yet to dispute your opinion on that. But that still does not support an argument that it's critical to roleplaying

 

[Rosh]

Maybe the fact that you can push the Submit button and see text appear has you fooled into thinking you have some basis in this topic. You don't stop with the bullshit, do you?

Let me try out your feeble "logic" out on the rest of the game, to show you exactly what kind of rut you've gotten your poor mind into. You seem to be under this amentia that persists in believing that combat isn't part of the CRPG. You're starting to sound like a BioWhore. We already have Volourn, thanks.

Going by your "logic", let's not consider character attributes/skill when dealing with the other aspects of the game.

Therefore you should be able to say anything, hit anything if you click on it, and pretty much act as if you're in an action game or DOOM. Hey, that doesn't sound like a CRPG at all. Well, no shit.

TB gives you the option of playing as you desire, with the attack method you desire be it ranged, sneaky (a lot better than how RT has had it), non-lethal, etc. It has far more support to the combat scheme rather than a method that would only rely on. JA2, technically a dungeon crawler in mechanics, gives more option to play an assassin character far over anything RT.

Better suited > Not suited. Yes, I tore that straw man down too, shithead. How the hell could you be so dense to endorse facets of design that do not contribute to a roleplaying environment into a CRPG and still try to call it a CRPG? I bet you didn't think that far.

Then I could also point out that the main reason why people like TB is because it can devote more resources for AI than RT would EVER be capable of with the same hardware. Well, you don't exactly have to belong to MENSA to figure out what the fuck that means, but I'm suspecting you might belong towards the other side of the spectrum, at which this is a waste to write for your behalf and I really only do so for the amusement of others.

Learn what a genre is and what mechanics are before you sodomize your keyboard again.

 

[Taoreich]

My, what a diatribe. You must have a very strong argument. I'll try one more time to clarify and then leave you to your self-congratulatory ethos.

The argument I put forth was that turn-based combat is not pivotal to role playing as the implementation via the player is bastardizes the actual role playing aspect.

Your counter seems to be that turn-based is more effective than real-time; nay, by virtue of it's superiority it becomes the only choice.

But unfortunately, logic does tell us that something being the better choice does not make it the only choice. In revisiting my initial statement, I find that I am in fact saying that turn based is not the only choice. There's an odd synergy....

And feel free to apply this logic elsewhere as above as a sort of refutation. As other aspects of the game are not in scope, references to them are not germaine and add nothing to this particular discussion. But if it gives you a sense of validation to do so, knock yourself out. Heck, I'll even throw in a bone for the fourth time and tell you that I agree with you that turn based is, by and large, better suited to CRPGs.

 

[Rosh]

(Snip a lot of prosaic bullshit with the relevance of a dead chicken.)

Look, kid. You might want to learn what a genre is before you make yourself look even more stupid. We're not the mass-media clannies you're probably used to. We've had experience in and around the game industry, at length for a few in particular. We know the difference between action-adventure, dungeon crawler, adventure, and finally CRPG. You, obviously, do not, and therefore that is the root of your problem. All of those are distinct genres of construction, but unfortunately for you, you seem to suscribe to the BioWare definition that if one RPG has RT combat in it, that it's inherent to the genre and should be glorified as such. Learn what a hybrid is in terms of genre in game development.

As other aspects of the game are not in scope, references to them are not germaine and add nothing to this particular discussion.

Translation from bullshit: No, combat is a different part of the game than the rest.

Nice try, but...no.

But if it gives you a sense of validation to do so, knock yourself out. Heck, I'll even throw in a bone for the fourth time and tell you that I agree with you that turn based is, by and large, better suited to CRPGs.

You really should learn more about the genres and not just believe the four categories that most file games away in. The sooner you realize and accept that, the quicker you can stop looking like a moron with a thesaurus. If you were too oblivious to notice, most around here are rather discriminating and tend to be fairly exact when discussing topics and aspects of game design.

Maybe it's time for you to try and do the same.

 

[Sigurd]

That's great. You just used "discriminating" correctly. That makes me very happy inside.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Taoreich, you seem to be confused over one aspect of the argument. Combat is neccesary, nae vital to a CRPG. Its not a separate entity from the game, not a sub game or metagame. Its part of the fucking system. One cannot be without the other. Therefore it becomes vital to the quality of the game that the combat is as effective as the rest of the mechanics.

"Just because its the best option doesn't mean its the only one."

Are you simple? Dragging myself to work naked while peppered with broken glass is an option, but I'd rather take the bus. TB is the only option for a viable effective rpg because RT takes nothing from the role-playing attributes of the game. Its so glaringly obvious i'm amazed that somebody with your ability to transfer text from Word having succcesfully run it through the auto-thesaurus , seems unable to pick up on it.

Also theres no "i" in germane.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Back to the topic, how about we decide on the actual ten. Start choosing your favourites from the ones we have heard, or add more of your own. Then I will compile ten basic commandments, and give each a paragraph of expansion, clarifying its exact meaning. Then you can all declare me god, and worship at my feet.