Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #1: The role and the play

Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #1: The role and the play

First i'd like to state what this thread is about. My gaming habits usually throw me more at various types of RPGs than any other game type. Consequently i've played many types of RPGs before (even if not all types, such as MUDs, unfortunately), and am constantly trying to re-evaluate them, what they are and what they mean, to me and other gamers. I'd like this to be one of (possible) future threads about role-playing in our CRPGs (or even console RPGs, im not discriminating, as i also play and enjoy them). Second i'd like to say thanks, in advance, to anyone who can bring good coments, ideas and/or their overall gaming expertise into this thread. And with that out of the way, let me explain the purposed of this thread:

This thread's purpose (RPG Roundtable #1), is, like the sub-title indicates, about roles, and how they come into play, in RPGs. I'd like to discuss primarily what you think is the best way you've seen (or would have liked to see) a role being displayed or played. So lets just forget the already established rule that RPGs cannot emulate (for now) the same level of freedom a PnP system can, and lets try and draw some points about what is currently possible. I'd like to throw in a little wood into the fire, first. I believe the common conception of our "role" in roleplay has degenerated over the fact of multiple interpretations of it. To the large target audience of, say, console gamers, the roleplay in their usual types of RPGs is a pre-made role. Consequently, they do not play their own role, but instead, play their games to have a role played to them, presenting them with very little character development choices (its a given that we all have a specific role in most RPGs - in Arcanum we will always be the sole survivor of the IFS Zephyr, and we will, in contrast, always be Cloud in FF7, for example; but while my role of survivor of the blimp crash will be completely different from your survivor, Cloud, in FF7, will always be the same Cloud for everyone else). This, regardless, leads them to accept a console RPG character to talk by itself trough most (96%, roughly) of the game, and enjoy it. I enjoy it as means of story-telling, though not as means of roleplay. Incidentally, other console games, such as, say, Shenmue, present greater levels of exploration and decision-making akin to a freeform RPG (and above what other console RPGs present), while the game itself is not one. You could also look at The Sims, which presents a good deal of strategy in handing us a character creation system thingie, then tossing it into a world where we must have our character(s) survive - in the Sims, one could say we're playing the role (even if it's as mute as the main characters of Diablo 2) of a character, and deciding things that will insure its success (and the game while giving us something similar to playing a role, is not an RPG). Meanwhile CRPGs usually give all the decision-making to us, trying its best to give us a role we can develop. Personally i prefer the CRPG way of doing this, but moving on... Sometimes when you look at a game, you can see a level of role-playing in it, but then you do not consider it an RPG. Why? Most people only consider an RPG as an RPG if it has the typical character spreadsheet, or if it has archaic formulas as classes (again, different interpretations). The point i'm trying to develop here is, how do we exactly look at a game with roleplaying abilities in it, and how do we look at a game with roleplaying abilities in it and a statistical spreadsheet? Do we only associate roleplaying if our character has a chart with numerical figures? Or, to an extent, can we appreciate a game that deviates from the usual CRPG by giving more decision-making and less statistical management? Example: i personally liked the idea of Planescape: Torment of changing the Nameless One's alignment (his view of himself) according to what he did. Now imagine the game would develop more on that issue by extending means and outcomes of role-playing, but removed any D&Desque influences, and, consequently, dumped its character sheets, combat rules, level-ups and whatnots - would you still consider it an RPG? Or is the term RPG still exclusively associated with character development + statitical development? Can you enjoy a game with more actual roleplaying than statistical tracking, or do you consider it to be more of a means to an end, or simply a necessary byproduct that goes hand in hand? Would you still call it an RPG even if roleplaying existed in a 100% basis and statistics were non-existant?

Correct, post and/or flame. Just remember, be gentle - its my first time... today

The difficult thing with creating a character in games like Arcanum and Fallout is that you can't be all that attached to a character based on stat numbers alone. I do not play any RPGs besides a couple CRPGs so am not fully sure how the stats will translate into a character. The creation method in JA2 was more interesting because the personality questions you answered allowed you to delve into the character more and create more of a background for him. I would rather create the stats based on personality than just working with numbers.

A role has two parts: a character and a situation.

Without a situation you would play someone wandering around with no purpose. Every game pretty much has a situation.

Then there is character. I type that I (and I assume most here) is personal character creation as opposed to pre-made.

A character is put into a situation, say finding a water chip. With creating a character I can react to the situation in any way I want (limited by developers scripting). If I am given a character, lets call him Cloud, my reactions are predetermined. Sometimes this works well with telling a story but becomes an adventure game instead of an RPG.

People also need to figure out that the most important word in an RPG is "playing" not "role". It is called a Role-Playing-Game as opposed to a Role-Acting-Game. When actors go infront of the camera they not try to get into the character and talk as they think their character would, they work from a script, they are acting out the role. If they are giving a character and told to respond and act according to how they think then they would be playing out the role.

A good RPG in my opinion has an interesting situation, freedom in creating a character, and a lot of room to play out the character.

Yeah i pretty much agree with with your views on it, Human Shield. Hell, those views (and others) made me a bit of an undesired element in sites like GameFAQs (god bless those pricks). I personally think an RPG is partway characterization and customization, and a gameworld which gives you opportunities that make said characterization and customization relevant. Console RPGs like you said, are more on the brink of being Role-Acting-Games than Role-Playing, but by presenting some measure of decision-making in story and customization makes them strange hybrids that are heavilly story-based adventures with the more statistical aspects of RPGs carrying them along the way.

Though i'm still interested in other people's evaluation of the role itself, separated, and/or in conjunction with statistical development. I didn't mean this to go into an RPG classification-themed thread of sorts, just wanted to focus on the role itself. But thanks for the input, though :wink:

*waits patiently for others*

Role-Player said:

Console RPGs like you said, are more on the brink of being Role-Acting-Games than Role-Playing

Click to expand...

You get ten points for that one. The story-based decisions that are made from console RPGs tend to either be extremly pointless (go on a date with the big black guy instead of the damsel in distress!) or it is integral to the outcome of the plot, but decided by either saying yes or no, or going through door #3. Except for that, the games play like a script with the most repetitive and lackluster combat system I've played.

That's really quite a shame. Those games usually tend to be visualy developed and the plot can certainly be engaging. I enjoyed the opener to Final Fantasy 9 where the main character tries to kidnap a princess with his loose band of thieves, but I couldn't even finish the game because the combat just completly drove me insane.

Human Shield said:

If I am given a character, lets call him Cloud, my reactions are predetermined.

Click to expand...

Hah. Good one.

I tend to agree with this. There is a problem with a lot of things that pass themselves off as CRPGs where every single outcome of the game is pre-destined for the player's character when the game goes gold, even before it's purchased and before it's installed and played. To me, that's a shallow experience.

I remember someone once claimed that even in that situation, the player has a choice in the matter, but the choices he gave were basically:

• The player follows the set path and goals, beats the game - hooray.
• The player just stops playing, thus the character never saves the day.
• The player's character dies and the player gives up.

The last two options should never be considered an actual option for roleplaying. Giving up on the game isn't playing the game, so you can hardly consider it role-playing. It's rather silly to even justify giving up on a game as an option of playing it when you're not playing it.

So, in reality, the only situation you have is the player jumps through all the hoops, in order, and beats the game. He becomes what the designers have designed the game for him to become at every point along the way - and the role, like you said, was governed for the player long, long before he ever plopped down his $50.

The whole 'statistical' side of CRPGs seems to be intimately tied to the idea of 'character-building' as the core of an RPG. You create your character by choosing certain characteristics that are mostly internal and usually represented by a numerical range for ease of comprehension. So a strength of 3 is obviously worse than a strength of 18 for example. Often these numbers are then used to generate various external skills and abilities. Then the same numbers are used to track 'character development' in one way or another.

Would RPG players play a game where your character is randomly generated with a 'secret' stat sheet ? This character then enters a situation (story) that pushes him to his limits, letting him discover his innate abilities. Exploring the world, and interacting with others helps him discover his strengths and weaknesses (both physical and mental). So the game not only explores the story, but the character living it. In some ways I guess I'm describing a 'real-life simulator' like the Sims but with more depth.

I guess the downside is you can't create a particular character which will alienate some (many?) players who want to play a particular role. This could result in frustration if they find their character is suited to a role they don't want to play.

Hmmm, perhaps there could be a 'genetic' form of character building. At the start of the game you have several choices of parents to choose from. A diplomatic player might choose a brain surgeon and a diplomat (doh!) as his parents. A tank player might choose a footballer and an gymnast. Or you could mix and match to create a balanced character, but there is always a random element that makes the resulting 'child' not totally predictable. Sometimes two geeks will produce a jock and vice versa.

Another factor is the complexity of creating an interesting story and environment that can let a player explore even though they are initially ignorant of their abilities.

Character development is not reflected on the character sheet but perhaps in a journal or CV showing achievements such as training and education as well as personal relationships and so forth.

This is just an idea off the top of my head and I'm sure it has flaws. Is it an RPG? An adventure? Or something else?

Greenskin13 said:

I enjoyed the opener to Final Fantasy 9 where the main character tries to kidnap a princess with his loose band of thieves, but I couldn't even finish the game because the combat just completly drove me insane.

Click to expand...

Yeah i know what you mean. For me to enjoy console RPGs (or RAGs :D ) i have to think to myself that it won't be an RPG i'll play before i play them. When i look at Xenogears, its one of the best console-type RPGs i've played, but... role? :shock: No. None whatsoever. Great story, characters, situations and gameplay, but alas, no role. A shame, really; two game discs that emphasize 3D and cutscenes could've been better used. Of course Square took the easy way out, and decided to be a marketing company that doesn't mind having its products called RPGs.

NOTE: On a side note, i'll be the first to admit i've disliked Square's combat systems (for the most part, that is; systems seen on other titles of theirs are actually interesting) but the funny thing is, they've managed to keep Final Fantasy games mostly turn-based (with the Active Time Battle system, having both a TB combat (the Wait option) or an all out for enemies where they attack before you're ready (the Active option)). Its not a satisfying turn-based, though (also because you're fixed, and any melee tactical advantage is wasted, spells also have success rates, etc.), due to its static nature of unit positioning and fixating. The fun aspect is, most console RPGs are turn-based, when consoles are know for action packed games; meanwhile, most recent CRPGs are realtime (or realtime hybrids), when the platform itself is known for tactics and careful planning when it comes to RPGs. Food for thought, eh?

Saint Proverbius said:

I tend to agree with this. There is a problem with a lot of things that pass themselves off as CRPGs where every single outcome of the game is pre-destined for the player's character when the game goes gold, even before it's purchased and before it's installed and played. To me, that's a shallow experience.

Click to expand...

Yeah i also agree. If i see a console RPG behave like that its to be expected, but it irks me to see CRPGs do it. How was it that Tim Cain said in an NMA interview? When he plays a console RPG he's being taken trough a gameplay experience which he has no control over; i also summed up what he said about role-playing regarding fixed experiences and personal experiences (the above Arcanum character and Cloud). Given that CRPGs have so much potential, its a wonder how they are sometimes made. I don't personally expect the industry to shift into making all games with a Fallout-like quality (even if it would be nice ), but sticking to classes (in an age when most PnP systems, what made CRPGs exist in the first place, are going with classless systems), and having extremely reduced roleplay is annoying. Thats why i agree with Chris Avellone, i also want "to see development outside of stats, and more related to the character's personality developing."

Role-Player said:

The point i'm trying to develop here is, how do we exactly look at a game with roleplaying abilities in it, and how do we look at a game with roleplaying abilities in it and a statistical spreadsheet? Do we only associate roleplaying if our character has a chart with numerical figures? .... Would you still call it an RPG even if roleplaying existed in a 100% basis and statistics were non-existant?

Click to expand...

I don't think that statistics matter that much, they are just features while actual role-playing is a defining gameplay element. Here is an example, Prelude to Darkness does not have commonly expected features as levels, gaining exp from fighting, etc, yet the game is very interesting and less distracting because of that.
Personally I like spreadsheets, numbers and such, but sometimes I wish for some creativity and diversity in that department. For example, do we really need to have numeric attributes like str, dx, ws, etc in every game? Technically they could be substituted by skills, for example, if your character fights with 2h weapons a lot, it’s safe to assume that as his skill grows so does his strength giving him all strength related bonuses and in-game checks. If we are talking about character development, then let’s assume that your starting character is an average [insert race name here] and is not an uber hero with 18/00 str, if the char is average then I don’t think that stats matter that much unless you are power gaming which is what happen when the focus shifts from role-playing to stat-playing.
Alright, gotta run now, I'll post more later if you guys wanna hear more of my wacky thoughts

Skorpios said:

The whole 'statistical' side of CRPGs seems to be intimately tied to the idea of 'character-building' as the core of an RPG. You create your character by choosing certain characteristics that are mostly internal and usually represented by a numerical range for ease of comprehension. So a strength of 3 is obviously worse than a strength of 18 for example. Often these numbers are then used to generate various external skills and abilities. Then the same numbers are used to track 'character development' in one way or another.

Click to expand...

This is it exactly. It's an easy system for people to relate to because we all know what numbers are. Not only that, but using numbers allows the designers to make a statistical model for how things work within the game. The easiest example would be something like carry weight, where the Strength is a range from 1-10. How would you determine carry weight from that? Simply multiply it by another number, say 10, and say that's how many pounds of equipment a character can walk around in his backpack without penalties.

It's not only easy to look at and know what's better than what, but it also makes it easy to determine how your character works within the "physics" of the game world.

Would RPG players play a game where your character is randomly generated with a 'secret' stat sheet ? This character then enters a situation (story) that pushes him to his limits, letting him discover his innate abilities. Exploring the world, and interacting with others helps him discover his strengths and weaknesses (both physical and mental). So the game not only explores the story, but the character living it. In some ways I guess I'm describing a 'real-life simulator' like the Sims but with more depth.

Click to expand...

It would be rather silly not to express these things in numbers anyway. We measure everything in numbers. How fast can you run a mile? How much can you benchpress? What was your score on the SAT/ACT? How much do you weigh? See what I mean, here?

Everything, even in life, is represented in numbers. Just look at your resume sometime, look at all the numbers used there. Everything from your date of birth to how much experience in years you have in any area is on there. Look at your medical file, too. All your vital statistics are right there in numerical form, blood sugar levels, blood pressure, heart rate, body weight, cholesterol number, pH level of the blood, etc.. It's all numbers.

The two above things are about as close as it gets to character sheets in reality, when you think about it.. If they're done by numbers, why the hell wouldn't a character sheet in a CRPG use numbers as well?

I guess the downside is you can't create a particular character which will alienate some (many?) players who want to play a particular role. This could result in frustration if they find their character is suited to a role they don't want to play.

Click to expand...

Well, not only that, but say you randomly generate a human character and then hide it from the player. How is the player supposed to know what he or she can be? If you had a character sheet that said, "You have a strength of 18", then you'd know a brawler character would be good.

Of course, one could argue that you could make the player model represent his strength, and show the player with lots and lots of muscles if he or she is strong - but what about mental aspects? What about Charisma? What about Perception? You can't show those on the paperdoll. So, without numbers, how would you know what to be when you start out?

If you had to go by trial and error on the smarts thing, you're in for a frustrating time. If your character is stupid, then it might not take you long to figure that out.. But what if you're just average? You manage to learn a few spells from a teacher, and then your advancement in magic stops suddenly because your average mind can't grasp the higher level magic stuff. Would that be great? How long might it take you to figure out that your randomly generated character with hidden numbers just can't do what you thought it could because it's average? A third of the game? Half of it?

Im sorry Skorpios, i handn't seen your post Though i understand what you're getting at, same with SP's post.

I don't think the problem would be creating a reactive gameworld, the problem would be reacting with oneself. Like i said, i liked PS:T's system of chaging one's view of oneself considering what you did. I'm thinking of a system that, albeit using statistics, could have them influence you and others.

Example: Your PC uses his statistics to influence someone/something, but in turn, your influence over someone/something ends up also influencing you. While you might use your Influence to make a poor farmer pay you more money that he was supposed to for some work you did, said decision might, while boosting your Charisma, lower your Valor. Aiding the farmer without asking for money however, could raise your Valor, but lower your Persuasion. In physical terms, doing push-ups might increase your Flexibility and Strenght, but bodybuilding with weights might lower your Flexibility while increasing your Constitution/Resistance/Stamina.

Of course im not talking of drastic, on-the-fly changes. There could be fixed numbers showing one's statistics, but a percentile tracker running on the background. The percentile tracker could prevent powergaming - instead of doing something utterly stupid just to raise something like Strength immediately, you'd have to do that thing repeatedly (or stopped repeating it) until your percentile tracker advanced or diminished its own level.

:shock: I think i've overly complicated this. Lets say you have Morrowind's system of tracking skill advancement. The more you use it, the more it gets better. If your Polearm skill is at level 3 with an 85% of completion, when you use it more, thus raising it to the next level, 4. But what i'm talking about is having the reverse implemented. Say you increase your Strength with this method, but then do something that doesn't propell Strenght, and may actually reduce it. If you go trough the game busting doors, punching people and intimidating, your Strenght could be in higher levels while your Intelligence could be lower; but if you used more Intelligence-based actions, it could lower your Strenght, and raise your Int.

Another aspect i was aiming for would be to do something that Troika is doing with ToEE, but instead of having party-based alignment restrictions, i'd like to see personal alignment restrictions. Meaning, if i do something evil, i'd like my character to actually be limited to a growing number of evil actions and answers. If i totally screw the lives of people i wouldn't want to keep seeing my character striving for the best of his fellow men. After all the corruption he brought why would my PC try to make it better? Why keep my good options open if i've made clear, by my actions, that i have no interest in them? There should be a new set of dialogue options for the path i choose; if im becoming evil i have no need for options in helping for free and somesuch. I'd prefer to have a limitation and start limiting him towards a more evil (from a general to a specialized one) across dialogue (and vice versa). Dialogue could also work hand in hand with actions. If i always try to pimp NPCs for that extra cash i could have that option appear more in dialogue; if i revel in brainless destruction and cause random dismemberments in combat, i could display bloodthirsty tendencies in dialogue; careful strategy, bribing, coaxing, blackmailing, hiring thugs to kill a peasant instead of doing it myself could broaden dialogue into a more refined type of evil dialogue.

So what im trying to get at, is that consequences would influence the character in and out, thus rendering the role actually playable and diverse. Sure, premade answers and outcomes could still exist, unavoidable plot points still unavoidable, but in essence, much, much more focused on advancing the self.

And since i'm being crazy, how about dumping levels and just sticking with skills? Id personally like to see a means of categorizing my customizable construct depending on its stats and achievements, not on how many millions of Geckos i left bloodied and scalped on the side of the road :wink:

@Skorpios: That genetic idea is interesting, but perhaps not at the begining. What if it would happen later? I find that a slightly more interesting later on... Perhaps similar to Wizardry's generation system, but more complex. Imagine starting out defining something similar to traits, benefits, race, skills and sttributes (perhaps choose determining characteristics directly instead of parents), then evolving, then reproducing and deciding what of your determinant characterisitics you'd like to be passed on (or perhaps an option that automatically passed the better/higher ones). That could be fairly interesting as well... even if admitedly more complicated :shock:

So after this megalomaniac rant, mayhaps its time i put an end to my misery?

Role-Player said:

. But what i'm talking about is having the reverse implemented. Say you increase your Strength with this method, but then do something that doesn't propell Strenght, and may actually reduce it. :

Click to expand...

ADOM has that :D

Saint_Proverbius said:

It's an easy system for people to relate to because we all know what numbers are.

Click to expand...

Knowing what the numbers are could be a limiting factor as that makes certain predetermination of your characters when the numbers are rolled or bought. The advantage of skill-based systems is that you can develop your character as you go, but the attributes make you made your choice ( to a degree ) at the moment of character creation and that somehow seems wrong.

The easiest example would be something like carry weight, where the Strength is a range from 1-10. How would you determine carry weight from that? Simply multiply it by another number, say 10, and say that's how many pounds of equipment a character can walk around in his backpack without penalties.

Click to expand...

Systems determining carry weight have never been perfect to begin with. I'm not in favour of realistic systems, but there could be other factors determining carry weight.

It would be rather silly not to express these things in numbers anyway. We measure everything in numbers. How fast can you run a mile? How much can you benchpress? What was your score on the SAT/ACT? How much do you weigh? See what I mean, here?

Click to expand...

We measure specific skills not attributes.

If you had a character sheet that said, "You have a strength of 18", then you'd know a brawler character would be good.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant. You look at your character sheet and see some predetermination.

But what if you're just average? You manage to learn a few spells from a teacher, and then your advancement in magic stops suddenly because your average mind can't grasp the higher level magic stuff. Would that be great?

Click to expand...

You are assuming that high intelligence is required to grasp some high level magic stuff and you are assuming that your character is unable to learn due to some head trauma Once again, predetermination that causes limitations and forces you to stick to what you started with..

I think the main issue is that the player usually does NOT want to play out 20 game years of lifting weights and reading books to set his stats. Players usually make up a backstory and desire to put that into a character.

If you want a strong character you put points into strength etc... Most "stats" we are talking about are very surreal. Does 18 intelligence let you master physics, biology, programming, and engineering all equally? Playing out intelligence while playing with other people can be done wtih role-playing but a single-player game doesn't accept open-ended actions.

With a pure skill-based system you can get divide actions into their set fields. But I would base in on new training and minimum repetition. A sword fighter doesn't learn anything from killing his hundreded golbin but maybe against this new werewolf that he has to develop a new strategy.

Potential based system (possiblity divided into phyisical and mental/personality). High potential makes learning easier, low potential needs more work. But it would be very limited, say only a few points either way. And it would make any skills effected by that stat easier to pick up. But the player would only see it at the begining and never again, as he gets more experienced his potentials would slowly increase along with being slowly effected by raising skills.

This follows the "I am getting a hang of this" idea, skills are gained expontially showing a grasp of the subject. Others mite struggle with it for their lifes or gasp "be alright" at it. With a soft limit to skill points and tempory drains on skills (not stats, "hitting monster make me dumber", more like getting rusty) a skill master would take focus and steady training.

Human Shield said:

I think the main issue is that the player usually does NOT want to play out 20 game years of lifting weights and reading books to set his stats. Players usually make up a backstory and desire to put that into a character.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that way. When I made a comment about learning, I meant that there a lot of things that could be learned fairly quickly, it's more of an insight then actual learning. Like say if you are a programmer, I can show you a thing or two that would help you to become much better and it wouldn't take long because you already have a solid foundation. Same thing with magic, if you're a mage, and you can't quite handle complexity of some high level stuff, a good lesson may help you there. Arcanum had a mastery system where you had to seek a trainer to help you when you are ready to advance.

Role-Player said:

Imagine starting out defining something similar to traits, benefits, race, skills and sttributes (perhaps choose determining characteristics directly instead of parents), then evolving, then reproducing and deciding what of your determinant characterisitics you'd like to be passed on (or perhaps an option that automatically passed the better/higher ones). That could be fairly interesting as well... even if admitedly more complicated.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of a role-simulation. Its one of things I've been yearning for in RPG's, with reactive worlds and open end-goals. The problem is that you have to make an RPG with a reactive world and open-ended goals, that is sturdy enough to withstand new generations. Its almost like an online persistent world, except its offline, and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone.

Just a quick question - is story essential in defining a character's role?


I liked what Vogel said about CRPG's - that the fun is simply in playing the role, (the pay-offs are in the character and the development, not in the revelation of the amazing story twist I was vaguely suspicious of three hours ago,) whereas with other games it seems your choice as to what role you partake in a "story" is the emphasis of the fun. Which is moving more towards console role acting and away from the essence of what makes RPG's interesting and enjoyable. Its the reason why games like Thief are coming to be considered role playing games, because other role playing games are essentially the same thing - controlling a character through a story. If one were to consider Fallout a benchmark in RP-ing (and I do,) then the relationship between Thief and a role playing game looks a little ridiculous.

Role-Player said:

This thread's purpose (RPG Roundtable #1), is, like the sub-title indicates, about roles, and how they come into play, in RPGs. I'd like to discuss primarily what you think is the best way you've seen (or would have liked to see) a role being displayed or played.

Click to expand...

Erm, okay. I actually like a little bit of variety. The glory of letting you make up everything from scratch has been covered, so I'll talk about the other end.

I like some games where my character is just a blank slate, but having a pre-made character with inherent flavor can be fun, too. One thing I like about pre-made characters is that it gives you more of a chance to see the world through someone else's eyes. One funny thing about evil characters in games is that if you give me a choice, I often can't get over the mental block and actively choose to do nasty things, but I get a great kick out of games with an evil protagonist, where a lot of your role is just telling him when to swing his sword. I also occasionally like being railroaded into a character choice I wouldn't necessarily take. If I'm used to playing wizards, being forced to be a meathead brawler can be fun. If my characters are always brainiacs, having a game with a slow-witted protagonist can be a nice new experience. Choice is good, but sometimes making do with what you're given can be a refreshing experience. It's mostly just a matter of having variety. As a side benefit, developers can spend more time fleshing out things and creating a consistent challenge level when they know exactly what you're going to be playing, so fixed character games can tend to be a little bit deeper without breaking the budget.

Also, if you're going to make a pre-set character, try and make him interesting. Talking of FFVII, part of why I didn't like it was that the characters were so boring. Cloud has the little backstory of being a clone or whatever, big whoop. Nothing else about him is remotely interesting. Tifa's juggy and not a bimbo but not really all that bright either. Barret has a kid. You can write up every character in a sentence or two and pretty much cover everything abou them. Compare that to another PS game released about the same time, Legacy of Kain. Kain was a really interesting character, and I got a big kick out of seeing the world through his eyes. He'd steadily pipe up with his own observations of different situations, and it was a lot of fun since I wouldn't have necessarily thought of it that way if he was just a blank slate for me to pour all the personality into. At the same time, I didn't like the spin offs, Soul Reaver and especially Soul Reaver 2 because Raziel just wasn't as interesting, but he still felt the need to spout off what he thought. He increasingly seemed to be just a pompous, shallow, hypocritical twit to me, especially in SR2, and I kept having to fight the urge to throw the controller at the screen. I felt less of an affinity for him, after a while when I heard his voice, I'd just think to myself, "Great, what's this idiot thinking now." I didn't feel like was part of the action at all, what I really wanted was to jump in the screen, smack Raziel around a few times, and tell him he's really looking at things all wrong.

Saint said:

The player follows the set path and goals, beats the game - hooray.

Click to expand...

But changing the set paths and the goals and beating the game still doesn't make a dynamic choice-filled world. You can swap out a single lane road for 3 single lane roads that converge at varying points, but the problem is the destination is always the same - though the journey may be a little different.

I'd like to see an rpg take on a Pirates style of game design. You couldn't 'win' at pirates, but you could do better and worse: you could own thousands of acres of land, be reunited with your family, be a legend (etc etc) and finally earn the rank of King's advisor. Is there a better rank? Maybe - try again. Or maybe you were on the road to the best game, and then got yourself captured - and now the game is toast (at least in terms of beating your best hi-score). There was actually more role-playing in that game than in most current rpgs : trader, raider, privateer, bounty hunter, hell you could spend half the time in jail and the rest of the time in port if you wanted....or maybe you played just to find your family.

Putting this into a typical rpg context: maybe you have 2 or three kingdoms vying for supremecy. You have 20 years of 'prime adventuring life' to do what you want. Training takes time, being captured takes time, deciding to see if there is a golden city at the end of the far wastes takes time. In the process of your adventures you'll have opportunities to attack and defend each kingdom's interests and gain prestige/land/title/wealth. And there's other things afoot too, not related to the kingdoms. A good friend is missing, someone has designs on your mother and the thieves guild sanctioned a break-in on your keep....and imagine how important a potion of longevity would be...and at the end, are you a tavern-keeper with some tall tales, a wealthy but titleless person, a landholder and a servant of the crown, or perhaps there's a way to make yourself a king?

Skorpios: I like the idea of not knowing your exact stats, but some type of feedback mechanism is necessary, at least so you know how to play/develop your character. I remember when I started PnP, getting 6-8 in a stat was a fun thing: a way of playing your character....you rarely seem to find such 'low' stats when playing modern rpgs.

Elwro said:

ADOM has that :D

Click to expand...

Yeah, it does :wink:

Vault Dweller said:

You are assuming that high intelligence is required to grasp some high level magic stuff and you are assuming that your character is unable to learn due to some head trauma Once again, predetermination that causes limitations and forces you to stick to what you started with..

Click to expand...

Human Shield said:

If you want a strong character you put points into strength etc... Most "stats" we are talking about are very surreal. Does 18 intelligence let you master physics, biology, programming, and engineering all equally?

Click to expand...

Good points. I personally think that Intelligence could either:

a) Be used by itself as a marker. Not so much with an established rule of something like D&D, but usually abilities have a direct use, thus Intelligence would probably be linked to the learning and effective use of spells.

b) Be used in conjunction with other skills, such as Wisdom. Perhaps in terms of spell learning, high Intelligence levels could allow to tap into higher level spells, but a fair amount of Wisdom could be required in learning new ones, perhaps even allowing to understand how a new higher level spell is improved over a past, weaker version of itself. Say, now that you've learned Balls of Fire (spell level 3), you could now understand what makes Great Balls of Fire (spell level 6) different regarding its predecessor (and how to use it).

Actually abilities working in conjunction sounds better, but perhaps more difficult to implement. Not only on statistical means, but Intelligence could also modify Dialogue components. Having a person with higher Int might improve dialogue.

Human Shield said:

I think the main issue is that the player usually does NOT want to play out 20 game years of lifting weights and reading books to set his stats. Players usually make up a backstory and desire to put that into a character.

Click to expand...

Well it wouldn't take 20 years :wink:

Percentile trackers, for one, could be linked to growth bars that showed progress. In this types of things, a clean interface (or visualization of stats) could be used. The game just has to run the percentile tracking, than relate it to a coloured progressive (or regressive) bar. Furthermore, it wouldn't necessarily need to be a 1% by 1% advancement always. The more you train the better you get at it, yes; but you'll eventually reach a mastery of what you can do. This means that it'll be increasingly harder to get better, because you're human, and you reach some points where you cannot be better. Could there be stronger people? Could there be smarter people? More attractive people? Of course there can be. But you're human, with limits. Your atributes may be higer than someone else, or lower, but you're unique. So training to become better won't always give you results. Making you better? Yes, but not forever.

With a pure skill-based system you can get divide actions into their set fields. But I would base in on new training and minimum repetition. A sword fighter doesn't learn anything from killing his hundreded golbin but maybe against this new werewolf that he has to develop a new strategy.

Click to expand...

True. More skills could arise given new challenges.

EEVIAC said:

I like the idea of a role-simulation. Its one of things I've been yearning for in RPG's, with reactive worlds and open end-goals. The problem is that you have to make an RPG with a reactive world and open-ended goals, that is sturdy enough to withstand new generations. Its almost like an online persistent world, except its offline, and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone.

Just a quick question - is story essential in defining a character's role?

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Personally i think it is (to a degree), but not to the point of being that important. I think a story, an over-aching plot is important in shaping a character's role, not defining to the point of presenting something final. Without a story, you're there, living as best you can. But when certain situations arise, possibly beyond your control, you, at times, have to make a decision. Those are the story aspects that usually force something on the character to have him react in a decisive matter. You have a role without forced story events, for sure; but much like real-life choices, sometimes you come across something beyond your control, and when dealt with, has no turning back. Personally, i like this kind of situation, if it presents enough interesting events, choices and outcomes, in games.

Even before playing, they can be interesting, depending on execution. In FO, you're the Chosen One even before being able to act as you well please. Even if the primary role, the primary condition, was not enforced in you (finding the GECK), you'd still be a Vault Dweller, and would still explore the Wasteland, and would still play a role you saw fit. However given the urgency of the primary role, of being the Chosen One, you can be somewhat led into other choices that may not exist if there wasn't a story. Will you spend time exploring an old military base when you're close to reaching the Tanker that can lead you to save your people? Will you go to NCR and assassinate someone, and possibly receive a good reward, while you know your village could succumb any minute?

Even if somewhat limiting to freely play a role at all times, ocasional events, or a well-planned uber conditioning event, can make a story that more interesting to play.

I liked what Vogel said about CRPG's - that the fun is simply in playing the role, (the pay-offs are in the character and the development, not in the revelation of the amazing story twist I was vaguely suspicious of three hours ago,) whereas with other games it seems your choice as to what role you partake in a "story" is the emphasis of the fun. Which is moving more towards console role acting and away from the essence of what makes RPG's interesting and enjoyable. Its the reason why games like Thief are coming to be considered role playing games, because other role playing games are essentially the same thing - controlling a character through a story. If one were to consider Fallout a benchmark in RP-ing (and I do,) then the relationship between Thief and a role playing game looks a little ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it does The problem with RAGs, is that they're not only heavilly-story based, but also your character cannot set itself free from the story, neither can he do anything about his motivations. Which is heavilly detrimental. The consideration of Thief being an RPG is extremely weird and possibly dangerous. Thief has an overaching story, fixed character motivations, linear story points, and is level-based (which, in itself, is already belonging to the FPS genre). People are considering games like Thief and Deus Ex RPGs because of the non-linearity and absolute freedom (given the game rules) you have on each mission - but they forget that the fact it has unavoidable missions and forced paths at times (plus no noteworthy character motivaton; when the fleshing out of character motivations occured trough dialogue was the only time it mattered (again working with an uber role)) are some of the things that make it stop being one. I'll call Thief and Deus Ex an Open-Ended FPS much sooner than i'd call it an RPG.

Walks with the Snails said:

Stuff

Click to expand...

Excellent point. Premade characters can at times work. Your examples also help. The FF7 cast was very shallow and easily described in full with one or two lines of text, but Kain was indeed very good. In the same example, the depiction of the past and motivations of each member of FF7 was relatively weak, one-dimensional minigames at best; Kain's comments about himself and what surrounded him perfectly fit the story.

Sharpei_Diem said:

More stuff :p

Click to expand...

Goood points as well 8)

I think the point is that a game like Thief could be consider a Pure-Role-Game. You feel being a thief so well and the gameplay is so great that the story (although I thought the cutscenes were extremely cool) is second to role. The role of a thief was distilled down to its pure form, and even thou the story and setting was great, the atmostsphere and gameplay made the game.

i like how you emphasized ROLE in rpg. most people nowadays try to make it more about your character then the role your supposed to play. morrowind imo is the closest thing to an rpg that has come out in some time. sure you could make the basics of your character, and define your class, or make up your own. but any way you looked at it, there was an ultimate role you were supposed to fit into. you could chose not to, and dick around the whole game, but it was always there.

some games are more 1 specific path with diffrent ways to take it (kotor for xbox is a good example) the only replay comes from remaking your character. you really didnt have a role, just a character you pressed buttons with to get to the next cutscene.

FF is probably the prime example of a rpg wannabe. again, just one big movie where you press a few buttons to get to the next cut scene. my opinion of the movies may be taken into question, but since its move to playstation and the pc, the games have been less ROLE and more SHINEY

Sharpei Diem said:

Skorpios: I like the idea of not knowing your exact stats, but some type of feedback mechanism is necessary, at least so you know how to play/develop your character. I remember when I started PnP, getting 6-8 in a stat was a fun thing: a way of playing your character....you rarely seem to find such 'low' stats when playing modern rpgs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I'm trying to describe a system that rewards roleplayers rather than powergamers.

I think I mentioned in my ramblings that the journal becomes the core of your character more than the traditional stat sheet. It might work something like 'Bridget Jones' Diary' or a blog...

Wednesday, 16th September
Went to Gym - beat personal best in the pool, but skipped weight training to perve on the step class
(background effect - small boost to Endurance, but drop in Strength)

Work was a disaster area, I stuffed up an order and got an official reprimand from my supervisor.
(effect: Stress level +5, Employment Rating - Insecure (Promotion unlikely)

Met cute goth chick at my Night Class on using the internet, we hit it off and she showed me some amazing hacker sites.
(effect: Boost to Flirtation skill, and Cyber-search skill, Relationships + 5, new subculture link: Goths)
Mood: Worried
Health: Tired, slight cold.
Weight: 85 kilos.

Other sections would include an address books listing, contacts, employers, teachers, friends and family. A resume listing educational achievements, work history, skills etc. Budget listing income and expenses and so forth.

The diary also includes your schedule. You only have so many hours in a day so joining a dance class (to improve your balance and also social skills) might mean quitting your membership of the chess club (affecting concentration and planning skills). You don't lose the skills you've already gained but you don't advance until you rejoin the chess club or start some other similar activity - say meditation.

There would be other forms of feedback of course, mostly environmental. In answer to St Proverbius's criticisms:

If you had to go by trial and error on the smarts thing, you're in for a frustrating time. If your character is stupid, then it might not take you long to figure that out.. But what if you're just average? You manage to learn a few spells from a teacher, and then your advancement in magic stops suddenly because your average mind can't grasp the higher level magic stuff. Would that be great? How long might it take you to figure out that your randomly generated character with hidden numbers just can't do what you thought it could because it's average? A third of the game? Half of it?

Click to expand...

Gaining high-level skills (like magic, or for a contemporary setting, let's say computer skills) would have to involve mentors or trainers. As experienced teachers with years of experience they have much better judgement of your potential than you do. So they wouldn't wait until half-way through the game to tell you: "Sorry, you are just not cut out to be a mage/hacker, sorry." No, if you go round to the local mage's guild/hacker's den the trainer will give you some initial feedback on how far you are likely to progress:

"Hmmm, you don't have much experience, but your aptitude test results are extremely encouraging, I think you could go all the way in the IT industry if you apply yourself."

"Well, you're never going to be an Olympic sprinter, son, but I think I can make a decent cross-country runner out of you given enough time."

"I'm sorry, young one, but the currents of magic are weak within you, there will be limits to what I can teach you."

Now this doesn't stop you signing up for the training, so you can broaden your character/role's skill-base if you want to, but with the knowledge that there could be limits to your advancement, so then you have to weigh up the costs and benefits of that training. Instead of being limited by 'the numbers' your choices are being formed on the experiences of your character and the responses of the NPCs around him. Not as simple or as elegant as numbers? Perhaps, but maybe more immersive, more interesting?

The whole game experience is exploring your character and his role, but the important messages (your basic capabilities) are the earliest and most obvious revelations. 'Invisible' attributes might not be reflected obviously in your avatar like big muscles, but would be made clear in all sorts of ways. Even a 'moron' would work out pretty quickly that his character has high charisma and is persuasive when he finds nearly every social encounter going his way (good job, promotion, networking, lots of social contacts and opportunities, romances, friendships, etc, etc.)

But this knowledge is never absolute you won't know exactly what your character can do unless you try it - isn't that what roleplaying is all about?

Player: OK, I know my eyesight is good, my reactions fairly sharp, but do I really have what it takes to learn how to fire a submachine gun? Guess I should go round to see that guy at the firing range and see what he thinks. Maybe a pistol or a shotgun might be more in my range, financially as well as in terms of skill. On the other hand, that guy I helped out at the rave last week said I had a natural instinct for streetfighting, he gave me the address of that Martial Arts Studio where I might learn more...

Saint_Proverbius said:

Everything, even in life, is represented in numbers

Click to expand...

Really? So when my eyes meet those of the love of my life across a crowded room, there is some simple 'attraction index' that determines our life together? An RPG that never goes beyond the numbers might as well be designed by accountants and run on a spreadsheet. We are talking about roleplaying here and there will always be situations or actions that people want to roleplay that AREN'T easily modelled mathematically. That's where the creativity of designers injects life into the cold, mathematical world of CRPGs.

I'm not saying numbers have no place in RPGs, far from it, I'm just raising a possible alternative to explore. The benefits of number-based stats are obvious and many as you pointed out, but are they the only way to experience roleplaying?

Sorry if I'm rambling too much, but I'm confined to quarters with chickenpox, so bear with me!

Very good points, Skorpios :wink:

I'd just like to say i think both you and Saint are right on this. While i don't think numerical-based stats are the be-it-all concerning stat-based gameplay, i'd have to say they are referential. Imagine if you had a stat based system running on titles or classifications:

PC: ShadowyBob, Level 7

Skills:

Athletics: Very Good
Speech: Fair
Strength: Good
Endurance: Excellent

With the classifications being Weak, Fair, Good, Very Good, and Excellent.

Now, while they're possible, there'd have to be a comparison table. After all, should my Athletics skill automatically allow me to win against people with a "Good" rating, just because my skill is "Very Good"? What if someone had an "Excellent" Endurance, making my "Good" Endurance fail in helping me run for longer periods? In that case a numerical component to calculate the differences should be needed, and it could run in the background. So 5 classifications could contain, say, on a scale of 0 to 100, 20% of the chances. Weak would have 0 to 20%, Fair would have 20 to 40%, etc.. Thats when breaking down the classifications and make them become numerical-based could work. Being told that your personal skill of Athletics is 84% and Endurance is 67% should help you determine if its worth it to run against someone with an Athletics skill of 76% and an Endurance of 88%.

(and sorry for taking so long to answer, my life's a bit of a mess recently, and i can't spend much time online because of it )

And if anyones still payign attention to this, here's one of the questions on the first post (which still wasn't answered): what do you think is the best way you've seen a role being displayed on a CRPG?