Here is my philosophy concerning ideal Fantasy Role-Playing games:

A good fantasy role-playing game will include an aspect of class balance, while allowing diverse styles of play. Mages, Warriors, Rogues and everything in between need to be given a level playing field, yet each with a distinct strength, as well as a distinct feel. The only consideration going into creating that unique character should be one of play style - how the player is going to go about solving the problems that surface in the game. There need to be enough customizable options available to the player to enable him or her to achieve this play style, to create their own story and character.

The Mage story should be centered around the uncanny, mysterious wielding of magic; which is the ability for the scholar, whose mind is his weapon, to allow this phrase to come to life. His strength lies in his vast knowledge and mental fortitude, which manifests itself, or moves beyond the limit of the mind and becomes quite real. The Mage's power is limited only by his knowledge and imagination. The wielding of this powerful force comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. The Mage must sacrifice personal constitution and physique in order to develop the compensating and rewarding ability to manipulate reality. The Mage's motto: "I can solve this problem if I can understand it, and manipulate it with magic." However, it is not this simple. Not all mages are alike. There are healers, hurters, and hiders to name a few. Magical spells are so diverse, that a Mage is really the most versatile character, able to mimic the other classes through magical means. However, a good RPG will not allow this ability to overshadow the strengths of other classes.

The Warrior story is one of brute strength, and bloody confrontation. The Warrior's motto is "I can solve any problem that comes my way by hacking it to death." The player should then be given the tools to create such a character. A vast arsenal of weaponry, shields and armour. The Warrior sacrifices efficacy in the arcane and more subtle arts for the ability to take and dish out much damage. Whereas the other classes have abilities that can circumvent the need for battle, Warriors almost exclusively live for combat. They may not be as manipulative or cunning as Mages or Rogues, but they make up for it in their pure toughness. Of course, the more weapon and armour choices, as well as weapon combos, the deeper this class will become, as the Warrior can then branch off into the Axe or Blade specialist, the Spear or Hammer specialist, the dual-wielder or the two-hander. Steel should work just as well as its magical alternative in the combat end of things, the difference being play style.

The Rogue story is all about secrecy and strategy. There must be some way to avoid direct confrontation, and solve problems via a more indirect, subtle approach. Persuasion, potion and poison making, marksmanship, stealth, concealed daggers for assassination purposes - each of these allows the player to move in the shadows, plan out their moves, and then execute their plan either without notice, or while displaying a surprising deadliness and speed, not evident by their appearance. Thus, the player needs access to options like the aforementioned skills and their resources - crafting, alchemy (with a wide variety of ingredients), bows and arrows and other forms of ranged weapons needed to strike from a distance. Skills and items should be devoted to making this class just as potent as the other two. Now, other balancing factors should be to include close-combat weapons (touch spells in the case of mages) as well as ranged weapons (ranged spells again for mages) designed for each of the three major stories (classes): a dagger would suit a Rogue whereas a long blade would suit a Warrior, a bow would suit perhaps the Rogue more than it would the Warrior, while the Warrior would have another means to strike at range, such as throwable objects.

Now, a minority of players will opt for pure-breed Mages, Warriors, or Rogues. Most, like myself, will see advantages in mastering aspects of all the classes, prefering to be a sort of "jack-of-all-trades" or at least some combination class that has a more widely spread skill base. These combination classes give the player the power of customization but should not be necessarily better than any of the pure breeds, just accomodating a different play style. Specialization should be rewarded with high potency in that one area, but crippled by low potency in other areas; whereas combinations will have many "average" skills that when combined should yield a similar degree of overall potency to the pure-breeds. The key error to avoid is a situation in which there is no disadvantage to developing all the skills, especially not an advantage. High level characters should not all be nearly identical in their abilities. Levels should serve to further specialize and define a player's chosen style of play and represents the sum of all the style choices (these choices include both advantages in some areas, and disadvantages in others) that the character has made thus far.

The environment in which to live out these play styles should include an element of natural danger, presenting the obstacles that will shape the character based on how that player responds to the challenge, and adapts to the environment. Further more, the player should be given goals to achieve, an outlet in which to live out and reap the rewards of their play style. These goals come in the form of quests, and yield a satisfaction after having worked to achieve them. The natural danger should include the "dread" factor. The player should have to learn lessons the hard way, as this will force him or her to really think about what play style suits them best. There should be natural and initially mysterious "pitfalls" and obstacles inherent in the environment which should limit lower level players from further exploring, or from taking the quickest route, lest they suffer consequences and possibly die. These are there to provide long term goals in which a high level character will be satisfied to overcome, so that they can experience the progress they have made in their journey. Also, there should be certain enemies, which the player is genuinely scared of at lower levels, both to provide a similar long term goal, the benefits of which can only be received by higher level characters, and also to provide a fearsome and risky challenge to those who know they are outmatched, but are looking to test their mettle. The player needs to be given the feeling that getting to the higher levels actually pays off in the game and allows them to face the fears they developed early in the game, or else they may not bother with the sometimes tedious process of leveling. There is no point in having a high level character if there aren't high level enemies with which to fight, and if there is nothing new to explore in the game with that much beloved character. The player has invested so much time in cultivating their particular character only to find themself having past the main quest and left to twiddle their talented thumbs in an empty and boring environment, with no real purpose left in their virtual lives. And this is when all but the most diehard role-players begin to lose interest, and the game becomes a relic that sits on the shelf to be admired but no longer experienced, except in those moments of nostalgic weakness, when one wonders if maybe they missed something or simply with the intent to relive the "glory days".

If Bethesda can somehow achieve, to a sufficient degree, these balance and environment ideals in a graphically-gorgeous, compelling game world, I, at least, feel that Skyrim will have been a huge success. But these are just the opinions of one rpg gamer. This thread exists for those who wish to discuss the ideal rpg characteristics, especially aspects of balance and environment, in hopes that the gods of rpg might bestow Skyrim with such qualities.

Bravo. Exceptionally well stated!

Not sure if Skyrim will include all of these aspects but I have some faith in it.

Well said. Excellent post.

Agree!!!

Yup yup nice!

Well written and thought out. :goodjob:

Generally agree and approve. :foodndrink:

Options

options everywhere

threads connecting and separating and re-connecting, strategies mingling and in some cases forced together, then separated again.





I like options in general over the three classic takes.

Brilliantly stated, I was grinning and nodding all the way through. As you say, there should be many sub-types and possibility for making mixed characters, but the game should feel significantly different if you choose to play a pure mage as opposed to a pure warrior.

In Oblivion most characters ended up as jack-off-all-trades, it felt like the natural thing to do and the build that the game was designed for.

I would like to add that - at least for me - the game world in an ideal RPG should not just revolve around your character. Again, not much happened in Oblivion without player input, apart from the NPC schedules in towns. Mods like Mart's Monster Mod made the game feel a lot more real for me, you could stumble upon massive battles that had nothing to do with you.

I'm not that good with words but I find your philosophy very close to my idea of good rpg. For me freedom is the most valuable characteristics of all. Not only to roam freely on the map or picking whatever quests I want but also being free to shape my way into the story. That's why I favor having multiple alternative paths in the main story as well. Without breaking the lore. For example if I want badly to join the evil side, why not let me try and help the badass dragons. If the historical truth is that the dragon has been defeated, then make me fail at some point in a convincing way, but let me try. Or at least make a ramification at some point towards the ending of the main story, like Deus Ex 1 did. But for me ideal would be a flexible story that can change radically according to my choices.

I very much agree with what you say, an RPG has more than just those three classes.
That is to say, an RPG should have so many options and choice, such a variety of skills, abilities and gameplay,
that those classes are subdivided and sometimes mix up.

A paladin is an armoured knight with a penchant for restorative magic, for instance. (pure good)
They all have strengths and weaknesses. I like to be a mage, and that means I rely on fighting from a distance, as a warrior up close can seriously hurt me.

From what Ive heard about Skyrim the levelling system rewards you for skills you use the most, wich would allow for excellent roleplay.
I could be a battlemage, a nightblade, whatever, and my skillset and abilities will reflect this. Awesome.

But, with the pre-made classes obsolete I do hope Bethesda will allow us to still call our character any class we like.

Its logical that NPC's will have classes, there will be healers, enchanters, merchants etc.

Please let me upon character creation enter both a name and a class. :wink_smile:

nice

I guess that's what Beth are aiming for

@ OP - A winrar is you!

May i say that it was all shallow bla bla that already fits any rpg? Thought i'd read something marvelous.

Well everyone's free to add their marvelous views, I like every word the OP wrote :tops:

No, they don't need to have an equal starting point. Why can't a mage be weak in the beginning and need to run away more often than a fighter does? OK...I'm trackin'

Ok, I think I'm picking something up. You're talking about single player games, yes? If you're using a party, then each class picks up a different role: The mage can take out hordes while the fighter protects or kills the paralyzed, etc. The fighter doesn't need to be able to take out 30 enemies single-handed.

or crossbow. I really see throwables as more a rogue or mage thing :shrug:

Erm, that's called winning, right?
Overall, I agree.

Question, do you believe that all players should be able to do all quests?

As long as for every situation there are seperate opportunities for different players.

* If it's a locked door/chest and rogue can pick it, a mage can magick it and a warrior should be able to break it open (damaging his weapons slightly and maybe breaking some fragile objects inside).
* If it's a conversation, a rogue can persuade, a mage can jedi mind-trick and a warrior can threaten.

Role-playing games differ from other types of games in that the objective is not clearly stated. For example, the main storyline of a first-person shooter ends when all the bad guys are dead; the objective is to search and destroy, without a lot of wiggle room. The game's lifetime can of course be prolonged through multiplayer, which allows for competition and endless battle scenarios, but as far as the story goes, the game is dead. In an RPG, the player should define how to "win" and how to triumph in their story; there are no hard-and-fast rules on how to complete an objective, nor even what the objective may be. Typical objectives set by players include item gathering, a collecting of rare and valuable objects (often wealth and exploration are means to achieve this); levelling, to become the most powerful and skillful person in the land (combat and quests are sought to achieve this); and others desire political power, fame or infamy, and conquest. The player should not be forced to achieve anything specific, though it would probably be in their best interest to follow the main storyline and reap the rewards.

In my opinion, people need a story to live in, which has either given to them, or which they create themselves. The whole reason why people are attracted to RPGs is because they are searching for an epic story to live out, which they don't find in reality; fantasy aims to satisfy the hole that reality leaves in the imagination. The problem with most RPGs is that the story is simply too small or too simplistic to satisfy the gamer. As mentioned by Unclellama, the player must be immersed in a world that feels like it has been going on long before he arrived, a world that has history and that feels like it will continue on without you. While the player is ultimately free to forge his own destiny, there must exist struggles and tensions outside his own plans, which he can choose either to interfere with, or to let them run their course, according to the player's style and vision of an ideal world. There must exist none of the limitations that arise in reality for people to become, achieve, and act out whatever their dream story is. Their background is not left to chance, they are not born into poverty and denied education and abused, they can decide what their talents are, with no parents to tell them how they ought to live out their lives. This is why many favor, even escape to, RPGs. To quote Cloudrest: "freedom is the most valuable characteristic of all." The player is free to "penetrate" the larger story however they choose; either through secret infiltration, or by loudly announcing their presence - either way, the player wants to feel that he has made an impact on the game world. Some gamers are sick of always being the "good guy", and wish to explore the darker side of their human nature; I say let them have it, and reap the consequences. This aspect of impacting the world is called "choosing sides". It is not up to the designers to necessarily label which side (there may be more than two) is good or bad, this is left to the freedom of the player, just as he defines his idea of "success". Morality is often poorly implemented in games, and if there is no God judging our actions in the game (or is there?), no Heaven or Hell, morality really has no place in the game world. While "gods" exist in TES lore, they seem to care nothing for morality, neither punishing nor rewarding; it is certainly the right of the player to challenge the authority of these divine beings, should they have any impact on the game life of the player. All that exists in the fantasy realm is actions and consequences.

Should the chosen style of play in itself determine how a player can shape his or her world? Quests obviously require certain skills to complete; yet, there should be multiple avenues which the player can take to solve the problem. Choosing a style of play means that you are sacrificing some skills/perks in order to gain others. The consequence of this being that not all players are able to do the same things. In answer to rumblyguts, yes, all players (classes/builds) should be able to do all quests; however, not all builds should be able to achieve the same results. Should the player be able to choose any course of action? Yes. This does not mean they will always be successful, especially if they are unskilled in the route chosen. How the player solves the problem shapes his character; yet, how the player's character is shaped also determines how he is able to successfully solve the problem. Each build should be able to complete every quest, if they play to their skills. To take it further, why not allow the player to define what "completion" of a certain quest means? Also, what if a play style was not a means to an end (a way to complete a quest), but was the end itself? Each style would not always be rewarded with the same outcome, but each would have the capacity to affect the game world in different ways.

Combat is an integral part of RPGs; consequently, the game will naturally cater to those proficient in fighting. Each class will have their own method of killing bad guys, but keep in mind this isn't a first person shooter. There should be skills that allow for alternate, nonviolent styles of play, while offering different rewards for those who choose to not focus on combat. Yet, players who choose this route should beware: they will be left helpless when the dragon comes to ravish the town. Who ever heard of a hero that can't fight? The player has, that's who, because he's defining the idea of "hero". In my mind, though, if you equal out combat for each class, then mages and rogues are naturally left with much more diverse abilities, and thus have a greater capacity to affect change. So it may be that some class choices are simply better than others. Ultimately, though, it's the player's choice. The pure warrior has a certain play style that some gamers prefer.

In all this I have a Single Player game in mind. A single-player offers more freedom, in the sense that the environment is much more malleable, as you must only account for the consequences of the actions of one player. However, like the first-person shooter, a game can be made immortal by making it multiplayer. The single player game sacrifices a key element of the story that people crave, while allowing it to expand into a much bigger story than the developers had in mind when they first charted out the game. This element is community and a sense of contribution. Friendships with real people can be made, as well as rivals, introducing competition. Guilds/factions are then composed of real people with the desired clash naturally resulting. The specialization of each play style can be used to its full potential if players are allowed to interact, form groups, and contribute their skillset as well as fulfill a specific role within that group. Because this is player to player interaction and not just Player - NPC interaction, the are many more possibilities - just look at WoW. However, you risk sacrificing depth of lore and restrict player impact on the world. Not only that, you create a game that is out of control. In this aspect, the single player game is more freeing, offering the gamer full control of his place in the game, without the uncertainty that is inherent in relationships. Multiplayer offers no guarantee that the player will be "the best". Persuasion is not governed by some mini-game, but actual conversations with real people. Skills are not only set by numbers, but by the skills that each player brings with him into the game. It is a trade-off, but perhaps it is akin to the saying "give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach the man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime". Give a gamer a set universe, and he'll play for a year; but give that gamer a dynamic universe that is constantly changing outside of him, not just being driven by him, and he may never put the controller down.

That's all I have for now.

These are great posts, very interesting discussion.

When I reflect on what sorts of role-playing experiences in computer games have been the most fun in my experience over the past decade or so, another important aspect is the sense of mystery when making difficult choices.

If I help this particular NPC, will it cause another NPC to hate me?

If I allocate skill points or attribute points to X, will it prevent me from getting Y in the future?

This is the same sense of wonder and mystery I find with any good dramatic setup (questions you ask yourself when you encounter a brand new NPC or embark on a new quest) that may not have a payoff (answer) until much later, perhaps hundreds of hours into the playthrough, as a result of the consequences of all your choices along the way.



This is an excellent point, and I'm hoping that Skyrim will build on all the amazing aspects of the past Bethesda RPGs to deliver the goods.

Heres my definition of an rpg. Freedom. If you dont want to do quests there should be alternate ways to gain the content the quests bring. For example if you join one mages guild and you blow up a rival guilds guildhouse than you gain reputation which allows you to up your rank. Or donating money or resources.

there should always be alternate ways to do things that fits as many playstyles as possible. If you dont want to fight the dragon guarding the treasure sneaking in should be possible. If you want a challenge there should be ways to do things way over your level. If you want to make money by buying things in one city and selling them in another it should be possible. rpg stands for role playing game. A game like the elder scrolls shuld allow you to define your on role with a few guidelines. It shouldnt define your role for you with hard rules such as haveing to do quests in order to be able to join a specific faction just becuase it suits the story. If your role is joining the faction you should be able to do that. If your role is being a mass murderer there shouldnt be unkillable npcs.

To put it basicly: you shoud be able to define your own role, not the game.

I don't necessarily think so. I don't think it should be that convenient. If you made your class and something keeps you from whatever prize or goal you have to do the legwork and earn that ending, where it is convenient for the prepared.

Note, and this applies to MQ or hand placed items, it is not restricted from the other classes, but because of a lacking parallel ability it takes a longer work around.

For that chest example, lets say locksmiths exist in this next game, your warrior would have to check in at the cave, go to the locksmith, check back after a few days, or hours, then back to the cave in order to ensure the items in the chest do not break.


By options, before, I mean real world work around that are completely beside characters and skill-sets. Politics, lackey work, general cost.