To me the only interesting issue right now with RPGs is the question of stats. From what we have seen, TES seems to be slowly going towards the elimination of stats. To me that would be GREAT news, bringing their games closer to my dream RPG.

Here are my thoughts on this and I would really like to know what others think about the issue.

Many people are against the idea of “dumbing the games down” accusing TES of becoming commercial etc. For example, the introduction of a “quest marker” clearly fits in this category and does indeed lower the depth and complexity of the games. However, the removal of stats in the game does NOT, and in fact, it could potentially eliminate the duality: complex game vs dumed-down game.

The key is that there needs to be a “surface level” to the world that is completely accessible and simple. But this surface does not constitute the entirety of the world. Whoever chooses to look deeper can do so. On the surface level there are signs and hints that point to a deeper reality (such as books, NPC, items etc etc.) Just like in the real world; one can live a basic life, going to work every day etc all the while clueless about the depth of science, philosophy, politics, religion, fringe movements etc etc. Anyone who just wants to live on the surface can do so… it should be the same in a good RPG.

In a game without stats, it’s possible to have the best of both worlds. On the SURFACE, a simple game and world; looking deeper, a world full of complexity. Someone who wants to just pick up a sword and go kill “bad guys” could do just that, without worrying about all other aspects of the world (including the ambiguity of what “bad guy” means). Another type of player, could decide to explore many aspects of the game, finding rich lore and many skills, guilds etc.

What I mean when I say STATS is the following:

-Player Level, Attribute stats, Numerical Skill stats
-Numerical Weights of Objects, Strengths of weapons and Armor.
-Numerical Strengths of Spells and Potions.
-Quantities of “soul” in enchanted items and soul gems.
-Numerical Fame/Infamy/wanted levels.

Basically all the information that a person would not possess in real life would not be directly known through a stat (at least in the beginning).
I would even go further and say that other info acting as “tags” should also be removed:

-Names of NPCs, Names of plants and objects.

Also, skills should not be definite from the start (does not start with “list” of all possible skills)

Some might say that the removal of all these stats would reduce the game to the level of Super Mario Brothers. Not So! Because all these stats would still be working behind the scenes, affecting the outcome of actions within the environment. The only difference is that the Player would not have direct knowledge of these stats, at least not in the form of a definite quantity. It would create the illusion of a simple game for whoever chooses to remain on that level and not seek further.
A world removed of such “tags and prices” would have much more depth and mystery to it… but only for those who seek further. That’s my dream RPG.

Stats and “Tags and Prices” are the greatest contributor to “dumbing down the game”. The goal should be to replace them all by visible (or auditory) “Signs and Results”; replacing quantity with quality.

Complete Example (sorry it’s a bit long):

I have hundreds of examples, but I will focus on one for now, using the skill of Alchemy to illustrate my point. Starting from the most basic surface level, the player would not even be aware of such a thing as alchemy, much less the skill of Alchemy.

After some exploration the player enters a general shop in some city, therein he finds some potions, one of which is labelled “strength potion”. Tags and prices are OK in this context because it is a STORE after all. The player can ask the shopkeeper about the potion, getting info like effects, side effects, and effectiveness. This, in a natural spoken language (ex “this is a potion with mild effects…etc”).

After buying a few potions and using them, the player finds it all too expensive. If the shopkeeper likes the player, he is told that he can make his own potions if he can’t afford them.” Just go talk to Roger at his specialty store in Bruma, he sells ingredients and knows about making potions”.

If the player wants to stay at the basic level, he bites the bullet and just keeps buying the expensive potions, if not, he visits ‘Roger’ in Bruma. Roger is happy to sell him ingredients and the proper apparatus to make his own potions, guiding him a little in the process at first. The player can ask Roger about “making potions” and then about “Strength Potions” and Roger will happily tell the player what ingredients are needed (and sell them to the player…).

There are also books for sale, one of which is entitled: “Introduction to Alchemy”. The player reads this book and finds a list of useful potions with recipes. He also reads that he can find his own ingredients. Next he buys a book called: “Plants and Ingredients” which contains descriptions (and even pictures) of the plants to get ingredients from and their usual locations.

Again, if the player finds it too complicated, he just stays at that level and keep buying ingredients from Roger. Otherwise, he goes out into the wild (book in hand) and hunts for those ingredients (I know I would). When he gets there, the plants don’t have “tags” telling him “I am a nirnroot”, no! He has to look at the description in the book and find the right plant with signs such as color, shape etc. The player can never be 100% certain that it is the right plant. Maybe he makes a mistake and uses the wrong plant, paying for it dearly later by making a poison without knowing it. So he looks at the plants closely! Notices all the details!

The levels of complexity can continue like that even more. Maybe the player later discovers that there is a guild of alchemists. He finds and joins the guild and then it could be a whole other level. He could find NPCs that know more, books that relate alchemy to the lore of the world etc. Alchemy related quests, knowledge that opens up to grander schemes, revealing the secrets of alchemy…

Now THAT in an RPG. It’s not about stats, quite the contrary; the absence of stats and tags makes the world worth exploring. It does not force you to explore it, it tempts you with a “veil” that never reveals the whole thing at once. You never know for sure, and so you want to know more.

I could easily create similar scenarios involving any stat, showing how a world without stats is both simple and complex at the same time… a world of constant wonder and discovery.

Well, here's my run-down of stats as a thing.

First off, I agree that wails of dumbing down and ruined FOREVER whenever numerical stats are replaced with something else is a bid whiny and counter-productive. However, I don't think all stats should be permanently removed. See, originally, games had the problem of being unable to represent individual actions in real-time on screen due to tech limitations, so they had stats step in to fill the gap of "well, the stats say you're smithing" or "the stats say you're better at long swords than you were" because they couldn't represent this visually.

However, even though they started off as a clever way stolen from pen-and-paper RPGs for digital RPGs to represent actions, they wound up coming into their own as a viable means of character differentiation in their own right, to the point where it's just easier and more convenient to have listed stats available in RPGs. I mean, sure, if they wanted to, I'm sure in TESVI or Fallout 4 Bethesda could eliminate viewable stat lists and show your progression entirely through animation, but would the average RPG fan be able to distinguish the level of skill to as close a point as they would like? I don't know. While I would like animation differences in the future, I don't think they should be the only means. I think that a lot of your ideas should be integrated alongside stats (and with Skyrim's item-viewing UI, the alchemy one seems particularly feasible), but I disagree with the idea that they should be removed. While it's hard to find the perfect balance of player skill and character skill, they definitely need to both be present for the style of game TES tends to be.

Sorry, but you're not playing a role there at all. As you said it, the PLAYER has to read the description in the book and match it with what the plants look like. And if it has been a long day at work and the player can't tell daffodils from daisies anyway, he's likely to make a mistake which the character, who has studies alchemy and plantlore for quite a while, would never make, especially since he just got up an hour ago, had a healthy breakfast at the tavern and feels as fresh as could be.

In the end, the character poisons himself because the player screwed up with his real-world weaknesses.

That's precisely what stats and skills exist for: In a P&P, the game master would have prevented that mistake from happening. In a cRPG, the system tests the plantlore of the character and from that calculates if he identifies the plant correctly. It's a nice idea to have the player compare books and plants, but this isn't LARP.

Thank god you are not working at Bethesda.


This.

Exactly, stats and skills are there as a great way to represent your characters abilities.
An RPG is not about you, and what you can do. It's about playing a role in a plot, as a character. What you're leaning towards is like some sort of simulation game.

Thanks for your answer.

But this type of talk is funny to me. I don't care about some definition (or what some think is THE definition) of "RPG". Role playing can mean many things, there is no strict definition of what it means. There are many ways to "play a role". You ARE playing the character so your skill has to come into play at some point. I'm not saying there is no "alchemy skill", just that there is no precise number determining this skill (rather, that number is not shown in a table as a stat).

There is a balance between what the player does and what the character does. I agree with this, but obviously I don't think that the balance lies as much on the side of the character. To the other extreme we could have your character meet an enemy and the outcome of the fight would be determined solely with the roll of a die combined with stats. To me, that would be a boring game. Maybe not to you?

So saying that if the player determines results (rather than the character with only stats etc), this makes a game "not an RPG" is a bit arbitrary. In that case the last RPG I've seen (according to your definition) would be something like Dragon Warrior I where the battles required no skill from the player, only the roll of a die.

I don't think TES ever aimed at making such games. Of course you can prefer having alchemy (for example) completely determined by some stat without any player involvement. I prefer the other way around, rather, I prefer that it tend towards player participation.

Whether or not this fits your definition of "RPG" is not the point and is irrelevant. The real point, is that the "non-stat way" does not dumbs things down.

And to me, it would be a much more interesting game without visible stats. Of course you can disagree, but saying that such games would somehow be inferior or dumbed down versions of stat games is false. It all depends on the depth of the gameworld.

You see, most people play RPGs in their spare time. On the other hand, at least after some time, characters are pros at what they do.
I have no problem learning plenty of things, otherwise my education wouldn't be what it is. But if I invest that much energy and time, I'd like to see some return on investment. You want me to become a Tamrielic botanist, please pay me as a botanist. That's the point of going pro with something. Expecting ME to pay to educate MYSELF to pro-level at a spare-time activity is somewhat daring...



The depth of the game world is zero if the stuff is happening on the player level - the CHARACTER is part of the game world, the PLAYER is not.

I agree with the OP. The removal of stats is a good thing for roleplaying games. For me, roleplaying in a game is all about immersion, and nothing is more immersing than requiring myself to personally take part in the in-game world. Having dice rolls and numbers determine everything makes me feel like I'm playing a game.

RPGs are about you AND the character, or else you would just sit down and watch a movie about a character.

All games are simulations. Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by that.

I've always been about the balance between player and character skills, so that, while you can power through on one or the other, they work best in collusion. That is why I like Mass Effect (uh-oh, I just mentioned a non-Bethesda game in a non-hater way. Wheres the heatsuit?) as you can play it like a shooter or manipulate stats, but the game is easiest (and most fun) when you dance the line between the playstyles.

You illustrate my point exactly. If you don't want to be a "Tamrielic botanist" then don't, play as something else. You don't have to, just buy the potions at the shop if you still want them. Or, just go to the level of alchemy that suits you. And others, who DO want to become a "Tamrielic botanist" can still do so.


Again... I never said that there were no internal stats, just that the stats were not visible. There IS an alchemy skill, and it DOES pay off to have a high one, you just don't see a number that says Alchemy = 34 (and that's not as good as 33).

You still completely miss the point that it's not about what _I_, the player, wants to become, but what the character has become. I may still want to play an expert botanist - but without having to invest as much time into studying tamrielic flora as I invested into learning real-world chemistry and biology. Because my real-world PhD pays out much better than the expertise in tamrielic lore.

Nothing is more detrimental to immersion than not being able to pull something off that the character should by right pull off easily. If the character can wrestle down an Ogrim but can't lift a haystack, that's not immersive. When a character has studied magic for 200 years but couldn't light a straw because the PLAYER can't get the magic formula together, that's not immersive.

As for dice roles, I dare you to declare that in your real life, everything works out precisely as you planned it.

The removal of stats does mean you could wrestle down an Ogrim but not lift a haystack. If the player has made a character that has supposedly studied magic for 200 years and somehow doesn't know how to light something on fire, then that's the players fault for making an impossible character or for forgetting what they are doing. The character-player relationship is important.


That's not what I implied at all. Things can randomly occur, problems can happen that the player could not or did not account for, but if I swing a sword at something with the intent of killing it, and the sword clearly comes into contact, if it does no damage whatsoever, then what the hell? It doesn't take a master swordsman to know you stab something with a sword and it dies.

If with the elimination of a strength stat there is no mechanism to test whether the character is strong enough to lift a haystack, while combat mechanisms still supply a mechanism for him to wrestle down an Ogrim, it does.



The character knows - the player doesn't. That's the point.



No, it takes someone without knowledge of swordsmanship to believe that all that's needed is contact with the blade to injure someone.

First of all, if you hit someone, you need your blade alignment to be precise, otherwise you might just take a stick instead of a sword. If your blade alignment is completely off, you will at best bruise the opponent. If it is somewhat off, your blade might enter but even get stuck. A sword isn't a mace...and even with a mace, you better hit with the head, not with the handle...

There are even techniques in which a swordsman will grab his opponent's blade and hold it - and no, he will NOT lose his fingers in the process.

It is NOT enough to make contact with the blade to damage someone.

A game can't work without mechanisms. There could still be a "strength" mechanism, just one that is hidden from the player. There are also walking mechanisms and jumping and looking and equipping and every single thing you've ever done in any video game is just a mechanism. What I'm referring to is the removal of any visible or immediately noticeable stat system. You don't raise skills, you don't level up, you simply do things and then get better, like in real life. Like in the Elder Scrolls.


The character knows nothing. It is only the belief of the player that the character knows. I could make a character and tell myself it is the smartest and most intuitive character in the world, but if I just sit there and make that character walk into a wall all day, that's my fault, not the character's.
In the in-game world, the player doesn't need to know every last detail of how to cast a fireball. In-game, it would be something like concentrating really hard and forming heat in your palm and blah blah shoot a fireball. The player can achieve this by pressing a button. No one's saying that's a problem. If you forgot what button it is, that is your fault.


What kind of complete and utter moron thinks it's simply enough to have the blade make contact with something to damage it? Maybe an infant. I've had absolutely no sword training in my life, but I'm aware that you have to stab or slash at something with a certain amount of force to pierce it. I think it is a far better system to require the player to aim the sword themselves to a certain extent rather than have the player click a button repeatedly while the sword swings and hits nothing. I simply cannot justify what is happening in pre-Oblivion TES games when I just sit there swinging away and not damaging the rat or scamp. Either I say "my character is incompetent" or I close my eyes and imagine the entire fight happening in a completely different way.

Imagination is great and all, but we need less and less of it as technology advances and games get more realistic. I'd much rather play out that imaginative fight than have it only exist in my head. That's the point.

@Velorian

I'm glad to see someone really gets what I am saying.

I never said: No stats determine any events. I merely said that these stats are not known to the player as a number. They exist but they are not visible in number form. They can be visible in the form of in game signs. If I keep doing physical activity that requires strength, I get stronger, that's it that'a all. Why do I need to see a number that quantifies it. If I am strong, I can carry more weight etc etc. Those are the visible signs of my strength, not some number.

The stats are all there behind the scenes, actually even more variables could come into play, but they manifest as realities in the gameworld not on a spread-sheet.

Another example: If I commit a crime, I don't want to automatically know that I am wanted for 500 gold. I would rather see a wanted poster on the city wall, or have an NPC tell me: hey, guards are looking for you. Or have a guard catch me by surprise and say: you are under arrest whithout me knowing in advance that I am wanted for 500 gold.

It's just one example, but it illustrates the idea that stats and variables should manifest IN the gameworld as realities of that world, not as a number that I automatically know about in a menu.

I completely get your point, but I simply dissagree.

The character becomes what YOU want it to become, that's the essence of TES games. The way you show the game what you want your character to become is by doing things that fit with that character. If you want your character to be a botanist, most likely you will want to look at plants. By "looking at plants" you gain skill in that activity. If you don't want to look at plants in the game, you don't want to be a botanist in the game.

If you want all the advantages of the botanist without doing any of what a botanist does, then buy the already made potion. Or make potions using already made ingrediants. That's the whole point of having levels of complexity as I mentioned before. If you want to be a "surface level" botanist in the game just find a useful recipe in the game and buy those ingrediants... make potions etc. That's the same level as the alchemy in oblivion. There you go, no need to mess with the deeper levels.

And obviously the botany of the game would not be as complex as the botany of the real world. But if you are sick of botany because that's what you do in real life, then why would you want to roleplay a botanist.

To me, role playing a botanist means doing what a botanist does, and gaining skill at it, as a stat (invisible) and as a useful result in game (visible). If that means I have to go pick flowers in the game, I will want to do that. Role playing a botanist is not about having all the advantages of what a botanist does without doing any of the activities botanists do.