The stats can be in the background - it doesn't matter, as long as they're there.

Whether it's better or not to see the stats down to every last point and change the numbers directly is a different argument altogether, but it's certainly not vital for an RPG.


I wouldn't say they "deepen the RPG aspect".

They certainly add a great deal to the overall experience, but they don't make the game any more or less of an RPG.


Yes I have. Look back and see the example I gave.


Once again, video-game RPGs work differently to pen & paper RPGs. Please stop using this invalid comparison.


You can do all of those things in an action-adventure.

Notice how you're hopping over to pen and paper immediately after saying that numbers aren't necessary and then point out how much variations exist there? That's because Pen and Paper games allow for improvisation. As for cRPGs, I'm afraid you're dead wrong. In a P&P RPG, you have an unwritten compact with the other players that you all want to have fun and that you're going to treat each other fairly etc. etc. ad nauseam. The GM won't screw you over in most cases, because he knows that would be the last time you let him be GM, and he will allow you to do things that are reasonable and fit the scheme of your character. In a cRPG, all you have is the game mechanics. You can imagine your character as dim-witted as you want - if the game mechanics makes you discover quantum mechanics, that's that. And if you imagine your character to be strong like a thousand Ogrim, and the game engine doesn't account for you to knocking down a door, then you can't knock down a door. In fact, you won't be able to lift a fork off the table regardless of how strong you believe your character to be, unless the game engine has mechanics to allow you to do so. As far as the game is concerned, your strength is nonexistant. You cannot roleplay a character who is strong if the mechanics don't allow it - a strength which has no effect is nonexistant.

What a strength stat is, is no more and no less than a compact with the game that your character can pull off ABCD but not EFGH. It allows you to anticipate to some degree what you can do and act accordingly, much like in real life, you know if what you can maximally pull down the driveway is an empty trashcan, a full trashcan, a Volkswagon or a Peterbilt truck.

This no longer amuses me.

I feel as though i've explained myself clearly enough. Some people will get it, others won't. Frankly, I don't care enough about what other people believe to spend my entire evening going over the same points over and over again.

Someone else who gets it can take over from me if they like.

Toodles. :bunny:

Can you clarify what exactly is the point you are arguing in this post?

you believe some data related to the PC is necessary for a videogame RPG? if you read my post carefully, you will see that I believe some tracked PC data is obviously necessary for a videogame RPG.

Or do you believe that specifically strength, intelligence, etc is necessary for a videogame RPG?

Please clarify this.

It seems pretty implausible that there's any one feature that is essential to RPGs. "RPG" is a really complicated cluster concept. Whether or not we call a game an "RPG" depends upon its gameplay elements, the games it has descended from, the games it is being compared to, the other possible genres it could fall under.

Some people might like to suggest that some of these features deserve special weighting - for instance, that some gameplay features deserve special weighting for whether a game counts as an RPG. I take that to be Sheogorath's suggestion. But Sheogorath's suggestion strikes me as trying to revise our conventions governing the use of "RPG", rather than offering an elucidation of those conventions.

Is there good reason to revise our conventions governing the use of "RPG" so that only certain gameplay features matter? I don't see any. Furthermore, I think there is also a good reason to believe that there could be no good reason to revise our conventions governing the use "RPG" so that only certain gameplay features matter. That is that there is really nothing important at stake in what deserves to be called an "RPG". Genre classifications are little more than helpful guides to what a game is like. They are helpful when you want a compare a game to other similar games. But none of these suggest revising our conventions governing the use of "RPG" so that only certain gameplay features matter.

It's what you make of the game, and how you play it. It has all of the potential laid out for you... That's what makes a roleplaying game... :foodndrink:.

If RPG means a role playing game, playing a role by taking the course of action you deem that role would take, then any element that enhances the players capacity to play that "role" certainly deepens the RPG aspect.



You did describe this hypothetical game in great detail but you did not demonstrate how it could considered be an RPG.




Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are proposing the following:

A. RPGs must have stats
B. This hypothetical game has stats
C. Therefore, it is an RPG

Unless I'm reading the wrong post, I fail to see this proves that such a game, with stats but no choices, should be considered an RPG. Which stats does it have? STR, DEX, etc? Why those specifically?

We can certainly agree to disagree about what an "RPG" means. In my view you must be able to play a role within the game. In order to play that role you must be able to carry out actions appropriate to the role you are playing. You must be able to choose, my character is "X," so he will do "Y." You could have a million stats in that hypothetical game, but if you are not making choices, you are not "playing" or "enacting" that detailed role.


While I take issue with your casual dismissal of the relevance of pen-and-paper role playing games to any discussion of video game role playing games, this comment makes me wonder if you actually read my post.

As I mentioned above, a video game RPG obviously requires the ability to track data related to the PC, since it is not a human GM, and in order for there to be any progression, "stats" must exist in the game mechanics. If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that certain very specific stats are essential for a videogame RPG, such as STR, INT, etc. I maintain there are many ways for a video game RPG to provide for character progression without these specific stats.


Are you proposing that if you take an action adventure game and add STR, INT, etc., it suddenly becomes an RPG, even if it did not allow you to play a "role" with meaningful choices?

I don't know, I really liked V.A.T.S. from fallout three, maybe something similar

I also liked how VATS let you look at the health of an enemys limb and cripple individual limbs.

I think that would add more strategy and usually, and I'm not saying always, RPGs are more strategic

This is the most well-reasoned argument I've read in this post, frankly. The people polarized to one side or the other all make valid points of course, but without a balance of both, Skyrim wouldn't feel like an Elder Scrolls game, and it wouldn't be a success.

We can debate what we think is more important all day without avail, but I'm inclined to agree with Lorkhan on this one: Skyrim needs to balance these two aspects of a good RPG, and it seems like it will be able to do that.

"Playing a role" as about as much to do with RPGs as pencil leads have to do with actual lead.

Sorry, I skimmed through this post too quickly. I think you're exactly right about what's behind these debates. A typical RPG will have a bunch of different gameplay mechanics, and some people like some of those more than the others, whereas other people will like those latter gameplay aspects more than the former. The first group of people will say that the gameplay aspects they like are the "true/essential" RPG elements, while the second group will say that the gameplay aspects they like are the "true/essential" RPG elements. But really, it's just they like different things about a typical RPG game.

What I don't understand is the psychological need to elevate one's own preferences in this way "what I like is what's essential to RPGs". Ok, great. I guess I'm happy if what I like about what I previously would have called "RPGs" isn't essential to RPGs (properly so-called, by the alleged technical definition). I'll still enjoy the game for what it is. :shrug:

Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind this rather curious statement?

Yes.

The game is actually improving upon alot of non combat "RP" stuff

-carriage system
-being able to mine, farm, cook, etc.
-marriage and relationships
-town economies
-radiant story
-more NPCs

In terms of numbers and stats, I guess you can make the point that this is less "RPG", but then you gotta remember they are putting in 280 perks and characters will be more unique than Morrowind/Oblivion...and that perks + 3 attributes still have all the effects - making the "lack of numbers" almost pointless complaint.

i'l bet you not even half of those will be in

I would agree with this to an extent - beyond whatever is "essential" to an RPG, there are many elements that make a game more fun to play or less fun to play. And we are certainly all free to maintain our own definitions of words like "RPG."

When you mention folks polarized to one side or the other, you must keep in mind, at one end of the spectrum, unless I am completely misunderstanding their argument, there are some who believe that among the myriad of all the different stats and data related to the PC that a game is tracking, there are a few "essential" stats held up on a pedestal, like STR, INT, DEX, etc., and without these the game is not worthy of the title "RPG"

Skyrim does not have STR, INT, DEX, so does that mean this is not going to be an RPG, or somehow that it will be a crappy game?

I still consider the game, based on all the information I've read so far, to be very likely one of the best video game role playing games of the past few years, if not perhaps the best one ever made.

Personally, I find the 1000s of other "stats" the game is tracking, such as whether you have entered Dungeon X, how much gold you have, whether NPC X likes you or hates you, what your reputation is with the Rebels, what your reputation is in each of the Nine Holds, whether you have a spouse, equally if not more important than, say, the numerical stat known as "Wisdom," which the game will not be tracking.

Actually, most of those listed have, in some form, been hinted at...

They're called pencil leads even though they aren't made out of lead, and likewise, RPG doesn't necessitate role playing. RPG implies a set of gameplay mechanics more than anything else.

Very much so, all of what they have said is more then enough to be able to enjoy the game. Going back to Daggerfall, I made a realization about the Elder Scrolls series. It didn't need complex stats to do what it set out to do. They wanted to make a world that was completely interactable, one where you could do anything you wanted to and the game shouldn't hold you back from doing it.

I want to sneak into the palace and assassinate some of the court? I could do that.

I want to go out and collect some herbs to sell in town? I could do that.

I want to be a brave adventurer that goes out into the wilderness to destroy any bandit he comes across? I could.

You get the point.

Which I think is really the point that many people seem to have forgotten is at the core of an RPG. It isn't stats or numbers or spreadsheets. It was the fact that you could go anywhere and do anything.

So yeah, can't wait to make that Nord Barbarian who uses an Axe and shouts at his enemies while trying to run from a dragon breathing fire on me as I try to reach the cave my latest quest told me to go to because I refused to use fast travel like a noob.

Right but what is the quality of this content that has been supposedly been added? That remains to be seen. Simply because everyone is clamoring for "more more MORE" doesn't necessarily make it better. I am going to start defining that as "Consumerism" I think. The best way I can think objectively is one person says "Wow 280 perks!! That is Soooooo much!" My question is "Yes but what kind of quality content are those perks?" To me if you take it at face value it sounds more like a whitewash of the old attribute system simply diluted and spread out even further than the old system.

:clap:

Great post. Agree 100%

it said more complexity at the start of them

You didn't need to explain the pencil part. If role playing isn't a part of the games, why the hell are they called role playing games? That is like saying a game with a jumping mechanic is a platform game, even though it doesn't contain any platforms you can jump to. Mechanics do not mean anything in and of themselves, they are there to define a character's abilities and interactions. The character, the world, and the character's interaction with the world are what matters, stats and mechanics are merely there to quantify these.

The term "RPG" predates video gaming. If you take every video game defined as an RPG, the stats and mechanics is something far more common to all of them than interaction with the world.