On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:34:15 -0700, "boolWorm" <zip> blabbed:
>No, it's not generally accepted that stats and combat (to rephrase) are a
>blight on roleplaying games. Wihtout them what you're left with is an
>adventure game. Think about it. A character's choices affecting the game
>world and any other non-stat element of RPGs can be in adventure games
>easily. Adventure games can be purely "role playing games", if you want to
>parse "role playing game" as its literal definition instead of the
>connotations of stats-based game rules that it has acquired. Do you think
>rulebooks for PnP RPGs have page after page of rules about what one can do
>to "role play within a story" or are they devoted to stats and their effects
>within the rule system? Why is one PnP RPG system better than another?
>Does one allow better stories and character interaction than another? Of
>course not. But the rule system matters. And I'd love to see one that
>wasn't based on stats in one form or another.
>
I agree w/Gerry on this one. Not so much that stats and such
are a blight on rpg's, they go well w/rpg's, often. But I don't think
they are a necessary part of an rpg. A game can be an rpg still,
w/out them. I consider the old choose-your-own-adventure books I read
as a kid to be rpg's even, the ones for younger kids had no stats or
dice rolling or anything other than making choices that changed how
the story progressed. The more complicated ones did have dice, stats,
etc.., and so were far more tactical, and were also great, but felt no
more like role playing than the ones w/out. It was the control over
the story of the character that made it feel like role playing, not
the winning of tactical battles. In fact, if I spend 100% of my
decision making time in a game making decisions that effect story,
then that game feels much more like i'm playing a role, than if I
spend 90% of my decision making timme in the game on tactical battles
and only 10% on story altering decisions. Tactical battles themselves
don't usually even alter the story after they are won other than - if
you win, the story goes on, if you die, game over. This makes them
more like an elaborate puzzle in an adventure game than any kind of
role playing element, you must solve this puzzle to continue. (I
remember in freespace 2 you could lose missions and continue on, but
having won or lost would change what missions were available to you
later, so that would be an example of battles actually affecting story
rather than just being a mandatory obstacle).
Tactical battles and rpg elements could go well together, and
I like them together, but too often the tactical battles are
emphasized, while the narrative of the story is purely linear
w/perhaps 1 alternate ending that you get depending on one choice you
make at the end of the game (which hardly makes it feel any less
linear). There are some exceptions of course, but I'm talking in
general.
Also, being able to have different dialog options depending on
your stats makes no difference if the different dialog options have no
effect on the game/narrative, which is too often the case w/games that
do such. I can say the rude thing, I can say the nice thing, but
either way I end up being given the same quest w/the same result, the
quest giver just speaks more rudely to me is all if I picked the rude
dialog option. That doesn't make it feel more like a role playing
game.
If you play a role, in a game, it is a role playing game.
What matters, in my mind, is the level of interactivity there is
between you and the role being played.
Another type is the type of game that is mostly narrative,
almost cinematic, like watching a movie w/no interactivity. Can be
fun, but the emphasize is elsewhere than role playing.
And of course, another type is one that is more a strategy
game than anything w/90% of it being battles and stats, w/10% being
story and usually 0% interacting w/the story (the story being purely
cinematic non-interactive cut scenes between battles). I enjoy this
type of game, but its not exactly role playing heavy.
If your interaction is limited to whether or not a battle is
won and the game can continue or is suddenly over, then no matter how
many stats there are, although it may still be an rpg, its only weakly
emphasizing the rpg nature of the game. If your interaction affects
the story, changes the narrative, and not merely in a 'win this fight
or game over' fashion, but in a 'the story takes a different route due
to your actions/inactions' then the role playing is emphasized more.
In both cases said games might be rpg's, but the role playing element
is emphasized more in one than the other. They might also be an
adventure game, depending on how you define adventure games, and
that's fine, call it what you will.
The label we apply to these different types of games don't
matter to me, call them all rpg's if you want. Call a doll making
game where all you do is dress the doll and adjust its stats an rpg if
you will, fine with me. Call a game of Chess an rpg because they
added the ability to level up the pieces and play cut scenes in
between mathes an rpg too. Although I disagree, I don't want to argue
about that, because that distinction between rpg and non-rpg isn' the
real point. I think what Gerry and I lament (and I apologize Gerry if
I misunderstand you) is that there is a decided lack of a type of game
we'd like to see more of. A 'type' of rpg that is largely missing.
RPG's where you spend at least 50% of your game time making story
altering decisions, where the narrative isn't linear (and I don't just
mean non-linear in the sense that you choose the order events take
place, sandbox style, but rather non-linear in the sense that its a
completely different story depending on your decisions). It can still
have stats and battles, could well compliment such a game, but such
elements should be there to compliment the rpg, not to *be* the game.
I think a game can be both an adventure game and an rpg too,
both a strategy game and an rpg as well. But again, arguing over the
distinction misses the point. Whatever all the types of games out
there are called or labelled as, no matter how enjoyable many of them
are, it doesn't change the fact that there is one type that is largely
absent from the gaming scene. I'd just like to see that missing type
of game gain more of a presence is all. The other types, the ones
that are all over the market now, can stay too, many of them are great
fun and give me hours of entertainment. But the rpg player in me also
wants some of that which is missing, whatever label you wish to give
it, I call it 'role playing'.
Leo
>> Stay informed about: RPG Report & Planescape: Torment 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
