3223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Drake_Hound wrote...

Part of RPG is character exploration , and even with awefull build you should continue .
You rolled a 12 18 12 10 10 10 , too bad make that toon and lets go RPG , well seems people dont play that way anymore , they just want the 6 times 16-18 rolls  .
But see you just hit the nail on the spot ,  why a lot of industry gives up on the complex builds , why waste time and effort.,If people just going to look on the net , instead of self character exploration .
So why bother coding so much work , and making it so complex , people wont use it ?

How come you keep saying "toon," anyway?

I always loathed rolled stat systems. Can we use a different example?

[InvincibleHero]

Comparing JRPGs to early RPGs like Telengard and the like yeah those types of games were purely mechanics based which is basically what Diablo is. I had lots of fun with Diablo I and II but I would say not really RPG. I understand why they are there though. It falls into the it has RPG mechanics so must be RPG purely by default since early games were made like that lacking the ability to make them better. One of the true first RPGs has to be the Ultima Series. IMO.

I think any defintion has to have a minimum acceptable and easily understandable description. Having a list and saying it has to have x of these isn't really defining. Yours seems heavy on must have party to be RPG. A genre should be defined in one or two simple sentences. classification should be clear and easy to determine. If you can slot other genres into it then the defintion is poor or not needed.

Let's do FPS. It has to be based on ranged combat with a main character in first person perspective. Simple and gets the point across. How about sports game? Object of the game is to simulate athletics or some activity recognized as sport. They can model it on football like Blood Bowl does. It uses RPG elements, but still no RPG. RPG? Look at this thread we still don't have consensus. If we did movies it is even easier. Point is should be unique and easily definable in brevity.

[Drake_Hound]

AlanC9 wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

Part of RPG is character exploration , and even with awefull build you should continue .
You rolled a 12 18 12 10 10 10 , too bad make that toon and lets go RPG , well seems people dont play that way anymore , they just want the 6 times 16-18 rolls  .
But see you just hit the nail on the spot ,  why a lot of industry gives up on the complex builds , why waste time and effort.,If people just going to look on the net , instead of self character exploration .
So why bother coding so much work , and making it so complex , people wont use it ?

How come you keep saying "toon," anyway?

I always loathed rolled stat systems. Can we use a different example?

A toon for me comes from a cartoon , when i roleplay I imagine a toon , not a real life flesh and blood being ..
Dont want Webcam Avatars .

Well basically no , when to you the stats are that important , but you dont want to put effort in understanding what the stats does , it is a double edge sword , so in that perspectief bioware is doing the correct thing .
Just cutting out the stats and giving you lego blocks to put in .

It is basically the same , stats look more sophisticated , but in the end it is the same .
IF 6 lego blocks , in a 6 block department , would translate back into stats , would be a 0-6 x6 , look ugly so lets multiple with 3 . then you got the same score of 0-18 .

Basically that is all to it , but having 0-6 means less chance of mistakes and flaws , then 0-18 .
Look the same with those stats i rolled , sure that toon is average , but if the campagain is made for average toon .
Then I wont have a problem , no need for perfection .

[Phaedon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
If you don't believe in the creators of D&D that birthed RPGs then I can't help you. It is true people think the ruleset/stats= rpg. It is wrong.

Are you serious?
Do you know how they first came up with the idea for D&D? It was a stratagy game. The whole point of the game was tactical numberically based combat. They played it much like Warhammer works, except that this was befor then. It was a game called Chain Mail. And then they decided to play just one individual character instead of an army of groups of soldiers. So they developed one character and changed the focus of the game just slightly and that's where RPGs were born. Still very much combat oriented, numerically based games, but now with character development.

Except that you started an argument that backfired on you.

Chainmail is a strategy game, DnD is an RPG, and the only thing that DnD had that was unique was the interactive storytelling.

Chainmail also had some idividual "characters", so it's clearly not that either.

This is why you missed my point with the Sims 3 comparison, and that's why you'll decide to do so from now on.

Modifié par Phaedon, 19 juillet 2011 - 07:59 .

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...
A game might not have all the PnP RPG elements but if it has a great many deal then it's an RPG.

The elements we're talking about are: 

- Story being a key part of the experience.
- You're playing as a character with a party (for example, Shepard and his squad).
- Each character, including your main character, has a specific role in the party, such as warrior, priest, mage, rogue, etc. (hence the name roleplaying game).
- Character growth and progression is a key part.
- Character growth and progression is expressed as 'xp' and leveling up.
- 'xp' can be spent on developing stats and traits of your character when leveling up, giving the player a feel of character growth.
- The player character (and the party) is in some way customizable through selecting gear, weapons, equipments and/or other means of customization.


I believe when a game contains all- or most of the elemens listed above, it's an RPG.

So if we keep my list as a check-list, then JRPGs such as Final Fantasy are in fact RPGs and are as much RPG as western RPGs.

First RPG's have be done without xp or levels. So, you can through these two out.

1. Story with interaction with enviroment (dialogs or items)
2. Player defined character (customation)
3. Progression (character advance)

These three you will find allmost every RPG there is. if you take one of them out, you will find people arguing is it anymore RPG.

Even the progression isn't required by role-playing, but most  RPG's still has it, so I included it. One of problem when defining RPG is that many people defines it based they own experience with RPG's. Experience with RPG's is allways limited. Meaning it's limited what you have played, but what you have played isn't all what it could be or even all what there is. So, you need to think more what's essense in RPG's.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:10 .

[Phaedon]

XP, Levels = Statistical Progression

Which is true, it is unnecessary in some storylines, and it doesn't make any sense in others.

I blame the "from drags to riches" cliche storylines that many RPGs had.

Modifié par Phaedon, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:14 .

[Lumikki]

Phaedon wrote...

XP, Levels = Statistical Progression

Which is true, it is unnecessary in some storylines, and it doesn't make any sense in others.

I blame the "from drags to riches" cliche storylines that many RPGs had.

Not just that but also there is other progressions.

1. Level based progression (most common and known)
2. Skill based progression
3. Time based progression

Point been don't ever lock down progression mechanics as RPG defination, when there is multible ways to do it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Arguably, so long as the actions of the character are in character, it doesn't matter where they get direction from. What makes it a game is that the player has some form of agency over these actions. In some games that agency is restricted to combat and other suck skill interactions. In other games it's entirely narrative based. And in other games it's various combinations of the two.

Even if you're just making combat decisions, how can you know those decisions are in-character without having
dfetailed knowledge of that personality?

Every in-game decision is a roleplaying decision, from which helmet to wear to which skill to learn to whether to flank your opponent.  Every one.

And you need to know your character intimately in order to make any of them.

Luc0s wrote...

So now you're saying that one of the most famous and one of the most popular RPG series ever, isn't a RPG game? LOLOLOLOL! 

Yes, because it contains no roleplaying.  The vast majority of Cloud's decisions (in the case of FF7) are made for you.  FF7 is actually the only JRPG I've ever played, and it failed so badly I've never returned to the genre.

They're called Roleplaying Games.  Stop using "RPG" as if it has no relation to the words for which it stands.

Sorry, but Final Fantasy  REALLY IS an RPG, like it or not, it's a fact.

If it's a fact, then you could justify that assertion.

Here I am happily justifying my assertions, and all you're doing is making declarations without any foundation at all.

In fact, RPG games where much like FF long before series like Dragon Age and Mass Effect came into the scene.

And actual RPGs like Wizardry, Oubliette, and Temple of Apshai were around long before FF.  What's your point?

I see Final Fantasy as a fairly late entrant.  When did it debut?  1987?  That was at the end of the tile-based period, which came after the wire-frame period, which came after the ASCII period.

How is Final Fantasy some kind of arbiter of genre standards.   I already addressed similar claims related to its predecessor - Dragon Quest - earlier in the thread.

Original RPG video-games had nothing to do with decision-making or building your own character. It was taking over the role of a party and experiening their adventure full with quests.

They typically involved building a whole party and make decisions on its behalf, including skill selections, combat tactics, and travel direction.

I can't think of an early CRPG (pre-1984) that handed you a pre-gen party and forced you to play with that one.

The genre even splintered long before FF came along.  The first action-RPG was arguably Telengard, from 1978.  Its core gameplay is remarkably similar to that of Diablo, released 18 years later.

Most classic RPG video-games also had specific roles for the characters in the party, such as warriors, mages, healers, rangers, etc. etc., much like the original table-top roleplaying-games, which are in fact the inspiration for the classic turn-based RPG video-game mechanics.

That's a revisionist position that's routinely put forward by modern tabletop publishers (like Wizards of the Coast).  I don't recall specific roles being closely tied to specific classes until EverQuest (1999).  AD&D (both 1st and 2nd edition, and D&D even as late as edition 3.5) happily supported non-standard class roles.  But try tanking with a Cleric in any modern game.  DAO was a bit of a throwback both in that you could tank with any class, and that you had enough crowd-control options that tanking wasn't even necessary if you didn't want to do it.

Forcing players and characters into the combat roles the designers foresaw is a very new development.

In my opinion, the best RPG systems don't have classes at all.  I prefer skill-based systems like GURPS or SPECIAL.

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

So why exactly should RPGs be the only game to change,  and why exactly should it change into TPS or Action-Adventure which are already defined and seperate genres?

Seriously.  Anyone.  Why should RPG's be the only genre to change,  and why must they change to become the other genres?

Has anyone made any such argument? I haven't read anyone saying that other genres shouldn't change. 

I'm not sure if I should call "strawman" or "not actually reading the thread" here.

For games in those genres to change comparably, they would need to lose their core defining characteristics.  Imagine an FPS game without any aiming or shooting, for example.  Would it still be a shooter?  Is Thief a shooter?

No, Thief isn't a shooter.  I've never encountered anyone who thought it was.  But why not?  If RPGs can still qualify as RPGs even after we remove the roleplaying, why can't shooters still be shooters when we remove the shooting?

Luc0s wrote...

Sorry, but The Sims is not an RPG for the very reason that it doesn't have a narrative.

The classic and original definition of the RPG genre puts more emphasis on the story-driven elements and the fact that you as the player crawl into the role of the main character(s) and experience a certain story with the character(s) usually through quests.

You're completely ignoring emergent narrative.

And second, why is story the thing that matters?  Why isn't roleplaying your standard.

Gatt9 is right.  The Sims is an RPG.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:19 .

[Phaedon]

Eh, I would say that Level and skill based progression translates as statistical progression for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Edit: but if someone wants to call X-COM an RPG, I wouldn't argue with him.

Alpha Centauri is more of a roleplaying game than ME2 is.

[Lumikki]

Phaedon wrote...

Eh, I would say that Level and skill based progression translates as statistical progression for me.

All of them are statical one way or other, because example cRPG's it's allways about numbers, but they are very different type of progressions. How much is shown to player is other thing. Of cause some type of progressions feels more statical than others.

Level based is build around idea that players gathers exp and then puts points what player wants to progress.
Skill based is build around idea, what you do is what you are and will get progress by random change.
Time based is build around idea that player choose what to progress and after sertain amount of time it's done.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:30 .

[Phaedon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Edit: but if someone wants to call X-COM an RPG, I wouldn't argue with him.

Alpha Centauri is more of a roleplaying game than ME2 is.

And The Sims 3 is more a roleplaying game than ME1 is.

Both facts, right?

Modifié par Phaedon, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:30 .

[Phaedon]

Lumikki wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Eh, I would say that Level and skill based progression translates as statistical progression for me.

All of them are statical one way or other, because example cRPG's it's allways about numbers, but they are very different type of progressions. How much is shown to player is other thing. Of cause some type of progressions feels more statical than others.

Level based is build around idea that players gathers exp and then puts points where player wants to progress.
Skill based is build around idea, what you do is what you are and will get progress by random change.
Time based is build around idea that player choose what to progress and after sertain amount of time it's done.

CRPGs are still games, and they have the player learning curve that exists in all games, too.

Which is why I find it pretty self-contradictive to talk about differentiating character from player in CRPGs and then saying about how how RPGs require strategy unlike these "dirty peasants called shooters".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Phaedon wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Edit: but if someone wants to call X-COM an RPG, I wouldn't argue with him.

Alpha Centauri is more of a roleplaying game than ME2 is.

And The Sims 3 is more a roleplaying than ME1 is.

From what I know of The Sims (I've not played it), I would say yes, but I think the gap is smaller.

[Lumikki]

Phaedon wrote...

CRPGs are still games, and they have the player learning curve that exists in all games, too.

That's true. The learning curve can how ever vary, how long time it takes to learn.

Which is why I find it pretty self-contradictive to talk about differentiating character from player in CRPGs and then saying about how how RPGs require strategy unlike these "dirty peasants called shooters".

In gameplay perspective all games requires strategy one way or other. So, issue isn't what you and I know this, issue is that some people just mock other gameplay styles, what they don't like without any good reasons. It's childish behavior.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:38 .

[Phaedon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
From what I know of The Sims (I've not played it), I would say yes, but I think the gap is smaller.

The gap from Alpha Centauri to the perfect RPG?


Right. ME1/2 are not RPGs, The Sims and Alpha Centauri are. And both lack big choices and a narrative. All they have is stats. 

But yeah, if you basically admit that that's the biggest element of RPGs and consider the SIms and Alpha Centauri to be such, then good for you. Proves my point, I think.

And TS3 is a much better "RPG" than Alpha Centauri. Character creation, character/player differentiation, inventory, loot, skills and statistical progression.

[Phaedon]

Lumikki wrote...
In gameplay perspective all games requires strategy one way or other. So, issue isn't what you and I know this, issue is that some people just mock other gameplay styles, what they don't like without any good reasons. It's childish behavior.

Nah, that's just basically elitism at it's finest. What I am commenting on, is some people bragging about the same time about RPGs differentiate characters from players, and then go on bragging about how much player interaction and skill RPGs need.

[Lumikki]

Phaedon wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
In gameplay perspective all games requires strategy one way or other. So, issue isn't what you and I know this, issue is that some people just mock other gameplay styles, what they don't like without any good reasons. It's childish behavior.

Nah, that's just basically elitism at it's finest. What I am commenting on, is some people bragging about the same time about RPGs differentiate characters from players, and then go on bragging about how much player interaction and skill RPGs need.

Aren't they just different side of same coin. Bragging self and mocking others.

[Phaedon]

Lumikki wrote...
Aren't they just different side of same coin. Bragging self and mocking others.

Oh yeah, but you see, the self-contradiction makes it all the more enjoyable.

[Xewaka]

Drake_Hound wrote...
Cause Complex Roleplay books or rules are slowly dying , everything is being streamlined back again .
Where in the past you had 10 stats , now they try to do with 5 if possible .

My Dark Heresy manual has four hundred pages. Each character has 10 stats. There's a truckload of talents and abilities.
My Legend of the Five Rings manual has four hundred pages. Nine stats per character. There's a humunguous quantity of Advantages, Disadvantages, Skills, and School Techniques.
My Discworld/GURPS handbook has another four hundred pages. Granted, GURPS only has four characteristics, but the amount of variety in advantages, disadvantages, and skills more than make up for it. Considering the rulebook contemplates characters from gnome (the six inches kin) to troll to vampire to zombie to human to talking dog. Yes, Gaspode the Wonder Dog can be recreated within the ruleset.
My Ars Magica handbook has another four hundred pages. Eight stats per character.  Again, a high variety of skills, advantages, and disadvantages. And the most comprehensive magic system to date I've seen.
Next time, try to avoid making sweeping statements opposed by the facts.

[Drake_Hound]

Xewaka wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...
Cause Complex Roleplay books or rules are slowly dying , everything is being streamlined back again .
Where in the past you had 10 stats , now they try to do with 5 if possible .

My Dark Heresy manual has four hundred pages. Each character has 10 stats. There's a truckload of talents and abilities.
My Legend of the Five Rings manual has four hundred pages. Nine stats per character. There's a humunguous quantity of Advantages, Disadvantages, Skills, and School Techniques.
My Discworld/GURPS handbook has another four hundred pages. Granted, GURPS only has four characteristics, but the amount of variety in advantages, disadvantages, and skills more than make up for it. Considering the rulebook contemplates characters from gnome (the six inches kin) to troll to vampire to zombie to human to talking dog. Yes, Gaspode the Wonder Dog can be recreated within the ruleset.
My Ars Magica handbook has another four hundred pages. Eight stats per character.  Again, a high variety of skills, advantages, and disadvantages. And the most comprehensive magic system to date I've seen.
Next time, try to avoid making sweeping statements opposed by the facts.

You want facts which editions are those books , and which time were they first introduced ?
Then check please which year we are now ?
DnD still excist doesn´t mean it is still the same game as way back .
Where thac0 was changed....

[Xewaka]

Drake_Hound wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...
Cause Complex Roleplay books or rules are slowly dying , everything is being streamlined back again .
Where in the past you had 10 stats , now they try to do with 5 if possible .

My Dark Heresy manual has four hundred pages. Each character has 10 stats. There's a truckload of talents and abilities.
My Legend of the Five Rings manual has four hundred pages. Nine stats per character. There's a humunguous quantity of Advantages, Disadvantages, Skills, and School Techniques.
My Discworld/GURPS handbook has another four hundred pages. Granted, GURPS only has four characteristics, but the amount of variety in advantages, disadvantages, and skills more than make up for it. Considering the rulebook contemplates characters from gnome (the six inches kin) to troll to vampire to zombie to human to talking dog. Yes, Gaspode the Wonder Dog can be recreated within the ruleset.
My Ars Magica handbook has another four hundred pages. Eight stats per character.  Again, a high variety of skills, advantages, and disadvantages. And the most comprehensive magic system to date I've seen.
Next time, try to avoid making sweeping statements opposed by the facts.

You want facts which editions are those books , and which time were they first introduced ?
Then check please which year we are now ?
DnD still excist doesn´t mean it is still the same game as way back .
Where thac0 was changed....

Dark Heresy, first edition, printed 2008.
Legend of the Five Rings, fourth edition, printed 2010
Ars Magica, fifth Edition, printed 2010
I'll grant you Discworld GURPS, it was originally printed in 1998 with the extended GURPS, then reprinted as a standalone with GURPS-lite 2002. The spanish edition (the one I owned) was printed in 2006.

EDIT: Oh, and the year is 2011.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 juillet 2011 - 01:32 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Edit: but if someone wants to call X-COM an RPG, I wouldn't argue with him.

Alpha Centauri is more of a roleplaying game than ME2 is.

And yet SMAC lacks most of the tradtitional roleplaying elements, even the ones that ME2 does have. It's a better example of the_one_54321's proposition, since the only elements it has are (emergent) narrative and indirectly-controlled combat.

Edit: but if emergent narrative counts then any game has narrative, and I'm not sure that's what the_one was getting at.

How'd we get on "what is an RPG" again, anyway?

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2011 - 02:47 .

[AlanC9]

Drake_Hound wrote...

DnD still excist doesn´t mean it is still the same game as way back .
Where thac0 was changed....

3.0/3.5 wasn't simpler than Basic D&D, except in the sense that it was a more rational system and so easier to understand.

Size of books is a pretty lousy metric here. The AD&D DMG is huge, but most of it isn't rules.