Where's the "Roleplaying" part of this game? : V - Skyrim

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:12 am

How does that work (exactly)?
You mention another's life (or do you mention another ~second life). You mention skills as being artificial, then mention 'things you can do', and "stuff that measure how good we are" (in game).

If you mean another's life... then I agree. It is a role ~like Hamelet, or even like each character in Voltron, or any character in a novel... Or even one where you decide much of the character yourself.
With this sort of other's life, you would want to know what that other spent their time learning (and how good they are at it).

If instead, you mean a second (virtual) life ~of your own... as in "I get to be a wizard", then I agree that you don't need much in the way of stats & skills, but I don't see that as a role playing game... There is no role. I see that as an action adventure akin to super mario (he can run, jump, and shoot fireballs too).

I disagree again.

I dont see warrior, theif, or mage as roles. Those are classes. Skills show if you are good or bad at something, and they measure the progress as you go from bad to good. An novice of magic is just as much a mage as the master mage. The master mage could put the novice to shame, but they're both mages. The role for me, is what kind of mage you are. What kind of theif you are.

Mario may be able to shoot fireballs, but he can only walk forward. His path is clear. That's why Mario isn't an rpg. A mage in an rpg could be good, evil, or grey. They're path isn't clear, and only after they make the choices in the game do the paths begin to show themselves. If Mario could somehow choose to be evil, good, or some where in between, then i would consider that game an rpg, even if his fireball never gets stronger.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:15 am

No game can get away with completely separating player skill with character skill.

Say I'm playing Baldurs Gate 2, and my character is a big dumb half-orc barbarian. He's a complete idiot with a single digit intelligence and wisdom scores. Why then, are his tactics and leadership so good when he's fighting a group of Drow or Mind Flayers? It's because I, the player, am good at tactics and can direct the team in a manner that my barbarian wouldn't be capable of.

Well, it's a videogame, there will be always the hand of the player. A PC will never walk, talk, fight by him/herself, unless he/she has some sort of own life out of your control

. As I already said several times, the player will command the character, it's the player who will choose WHAT the character will do. But it's the character that will determine HOW GOOD that action will be performed.

So in your example, you choose a tactic for your group of characters, but its the group itself to do their actions, and the group may success or fail doing them.

@Gizmo: didn't know about that "claw factor". But it fits perfectly.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:51 am

I disagree again.

I dont see warrior, theif, or mage as roles. Those are classes. Skills show if you are good or bad at something, and they measure the progress as you go from bad to good. An novice of magic is just as much a mage as the master mage. The master mage could put the novice to shame, but they're both mages. The role for me, is what kind of mage you are. What kind of theif you are.

Mario may be able to shoot fireballs, but he can only walk forward. His path is clear. That's why Mario isn't an rpg. A mage in an rpg could be good, evil, or grey. They're path isn't clear, and only after they make the choices in the game do the paths begin to show themselves. If Mario could somehow choose to be evil, good, or some where in between, then i would consider that game an rpg, even if his fireball never gets stronger.

Apparently you don't disagree as much as you think.

I certainly consider warrior, thief, & mage as classes and not roles. Most RPG's politely include a bit of backstory to flesh out the character before you start figuring out how to role play them. (This sometimes includes the PC's ethics and world view, by way of an 'alignment'). Baldur's Gate set the stage, and even allowed the player to rewrite the PC's entire past leading up to their life with Gorian and his death as they escaped.

Consider this... It is possible in an RPG to take the play Hamlet, for history in a game world, and have a timetraveler snatch him up before death, and leave him in the 1930s America. That would be an odd a role don't you think. The point is that the story from that part doesn't exist, and his actions are based on the player, but the actual role playing part would be to play Hamlet for all the culture shock he'd have, and his eventual escape from an asylum (or his death in the attempt... betrayed by another patient).

Say I'm playing Baldurs Gate 2, and my character is a big dumb half-orc barbarian. He's a complete idiot with a single digit intelligence and wisdom scores. Why then, are his tactics and leadership so good when he's fighting a group of Drow or Mind Flayers? It's because I, the player, am good at tactics and can direct the team in a manner that my barbarian wouldn't be capable of.

Is it a problem? You (as player) know his stats ~yet you are playing him as a master tactician? That's out of character don't you think?

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:24 pm

That is the main requirement to have a RPG, separation between Player and Character. the player can decide what the Character may do, but not how well will be done, be it hit a target, block an attack or persuade a NPC. Only the character can perform those action and the final result is only determined by the character skills. So, Morrowind (or Daggerfall) is A LOT more RPG than Oblivion, and maybe OB is not a RPG at all.

Umm, thats what happened in Oblivion, or am I missing something?

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:57 am

This thread is pointless. The two camps are never going to agree and the unending bickering will be ignored by the devs (as it has been for at least 9 years). We're just blowing hot air here. :turned:

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:34 am

The problem isn't that you can "role play", you don't even need a computer game for that. The problem is that TES games are increasingly not caring what you do, and that is a slap in the face to the role player.

The NPC's, both enemies and friends, should react in long-lasting, perhaps even permanent, ways. Those choices should begin with what race you play, and when it mattered, what class you played. Some NPC's should refuse to doing business with you except under exceptional circumstances, just because you are playing as a Nord. Some NPC's should be friendly, until they find out you are a member of the Mages guild, etc.

The best role playing experiences are the ones where you realize that your choices have impacted the world. The first time you run across a NPC who likes you because you helped his relative, etc.

In short, the game world should react - both negatively and positively - to who you are, and what you have done. Otherwise, you might as well just skip the computer game, and sit in a chair thinking about a game.

That's why I love Daggerfall. It's reputation system makes you really feel that your actions affects the world around you. Many faction types that will react at your deeds. Depending on your behaviour and choices you really end up playing different lifes, in which you make friends and enemies, and you'll suffer (or enjoy) the consequences. I don't know why this system has been so dumbed down so far. Or probably I know.

This thread is pointless. The two camps are never going to agree and the unending bickering will be ignored by the devs (as it has been for at least 9 years). We're just blowing hot air here. :turned:

Well I'm not here to influence devs. They can make the games they want to.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:19 am

Apparently you don't disagree as much as you think.

Consider this... It is possible in an RPG to take the play Hamlet, for history in a game world, and have a timetraveler snatch him up before death, and leave him in the 1930s America. That would be an odd a role don't you think. The point is that the story from that part doesn't exist, and his actions are based on the player, but the actual role playing part would be to play Hamlet for all the culture shock he'd have, and his eventual escape from an asylum (or his death in the attempt... betrayed by another patient).

I know where you're coming form and we agree at the basics, its just when we get picky we have different ideas.

Hamlet, like you said, would have his actions based on the player, but the roleplay would be playing the part. His one handed skill and perks with the longsword don't make him Hamlet, they just say if Hamlet can handle a sword. I'm just trying to say that skills don't make the role, they show what the role is good and bad at.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:35 pm

I know where you're coming form and we agree at the basics, its just when we get picky we have different ideas.

Hamlet, like you said, would have his actions based on the player, but the roleplay would be playing the part. His one handed skill and perks with the longsword don't make him Hamlet, they just say if Hamlet can handle a sword. I'm just trying to say that skills don't make the role, they show what the role is good and bad at.

Exactly. Skills represent what the character is good or bad at, but indirectly the define the character is because that's all he can do.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:26 am

This thread is pointless. The two camps are never going to agree and the unending bickering will be ignored by the devs (as it has been for at least 9 years). We're just blowing hot air here. :turned:

Its not like we have to agree. :mellow: We are not flaming each other. I respect their opinions, but counter with my own. Its actually probably a lot more constructive than a lot of the other threads here. An arguement takes two sides, it would be insainly boring if everyone agreed.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:37 pm

His one handed skill and perks with the longsword don't make him Hamlet, they just say if Hamlet can handle a sword. I'm just trying to say that skills don't make the role, they show what the role is good and bad at.

Exactly. Skills represent what the character is good or bad at, but indirectly the define the character is because that's all he can do.

They also can define part of his character... Take Marvel's Thor, or Hercules, or Inigo Montoya... Their abilities are part of their personalities; not the only part, but a significant one. *(but I don't mean that they are always the greater part)

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:30 am

They also can define part of his character... Take Marvel's Thor, or Hercules, or Inigo Montoya... Their abilities are part of their personalities; not the only part, but a significant one. *(but I don't mean that they are always the greater part)

Don't hate me, but I'm gonna bring up Disney's Hercules. Even when he got his powers taken away, he still tried to be the hero. He got royaly pwned, but he still tried. His powers played a big part of his life, but when it came down to it, it was him being the hero, not his powers.

I think we're arguing the different points with the same examples now.

I can't even tell if we're argueing or just agreeing in a real round about way. Skills play a part in the role, but for me at least the role can still be the role, even if sudenly the skills are taken away.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:50 pm

Don't hate me, but I'm gonna bring up Disney's Hercules. Even when he got his powers taken away, he still tried to be the hero. He got royaly pwned, but he still tried. His powers played a big part of his life, but when it came down to it, it was him being the hero, not his powers.

I think we're arguing the different points with the same examples now.

I can't even tell if we're argueing or just agreeing in a real round about way. Skills play a part in the role, but for me at least the role can still be the role, even if sudenly the skills are taken away.

I would say its the same with all of them. (and I'm pretty sure that's the base story of the new Thor movie too). :laugh:
I think you are right

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:59 am

Well, it's a videogame, there will be always the hand of the player. A PC will never walk, talk, fight by him/herself, unless he/she has some sort of own life out of your control

. As I already said several times, the player will command the character, it's the player who will choose WHAT the character will do. But it's the character that will determine HOW GOOD that action will be performed.

So in your example, you choose a tactic for your group of characters, but its the group itself to do their actions, and the group may success or fail doing them.

@Gizmo: didn't know about that "claw factor". But it fits perfectly.

Ideally, with your idea for roleplaying, you wouldn't be able to choose tactics at all. You would just push the "fight" button and your party would choose tactics and spells based on intelligence, wisdom, and previous experience.

Obviously this is an extreme example and wouldn't be fun at all, but my point is that if you're arbitrarily going to pick a point at where player skill becomes important to stop calling it roleplaying, someone else can pick another arbitrary point.

Is it a problem? You (as player) know his stats ~yet you are playing him as a master tactician? That's out of character don't you think?

Certainly it is, but since I'm doing it, doesn't that make Baldurs Gate 2 not a roleplaying game based on previous arguments?

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:43 am

Roleplaying? Jeez I can remember when i used to roleplay a stick man and blob game called "The Orb" on the 16k Zx Spectrum.

The only limit to roleplaying in any game is your imagination and it`s not the fault of the game per se.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:45 am

Ideally, with your idea for roleplaying, you wouldn't be able to choose tactics at all. You would just push the "fight" button and your party would choose tactics and spells based on intelligence, wisdom, and previous experience.[

Obviously this is an extreme example and wouldn't be fun at all, but my point is that if you're arbitrarily going to pick a point at where player skill becomes important to stop calling it roleplaying, someone else can pick another arbitrary point.

That's actually how Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 work for NPC's. I know people that play it using the party AI, but usually play the game as a Multiplayer session where I play three or four of the PC's (as well as any other party members); and I play them based on their stats and mood. :shrug: (unless their moods really shift, then the game plays them for me.)

Certainly it is, but since I'm doing it, doesn't that make Baldurs Gate 2 not a roleplaying game based on previous arguments?

Not to my thinking, no. The game's 'burden' is to react to the player's input.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:08 am

That's actually how Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 work for NPC's. I know people that play it using the party AI, but usually play the game as a Multiplayer session where I play three or four of the PC's (as well as any other party members); and I play them based on their stats and mood. :shrug: (unless their moods really shift, then the game plays them for me.)

Not to my thinking, no. The game's 'burden' is to react to the player's input.

So what if I said I intentionally miss most of the time when playing oblivion with a low archery character? Does it become a roleplaying game then?

Fact is, whether you choose to utilize it or not, your control over the character allows you the player to do things with your character in Baldurs Gate 2 that he or she would otherwise be unable to do.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:16 pm

Ideally, with your idea for roleplaying, you wouldn't be able to choose tactics at all. You would just push the "fight" button and your party would choose tactics and spells based on intelligence, wisdom, and previous experience.

Obviously this is an extreme example and wouldn't be fun at all, but my point is that if you're arbitrarily going to pick a point at where player skill becomes important to stop calling it roleplaying, someone else can pick another arbitrary point.

No, you are not getting my point at all.

You are supposed to "manage" your character. Even in a PnP RPG you manage your character. You tell the char what will be doing. Supposing you want him/her to cast a destruction spell. Well your work there is over. The character will try to cast the spell, but it may succeed or not. Then you want him to unlock that door. You tell him to unlock it. Here your work is over. He/she will try to unlock that door and the result will be only depending on his/her skill. You have in no way to interfere with the character job that may influence his/her work, the final result of his/her action. That's what I'm try to explain about player/character separation.

Then you can use all the tactics you may need. Tactics are part of what you decide the character will do, the order of his/her actions and so on. The rest is up to the character.

So what if I said I intentionally miss most of the time when playing oblivion with a low archery character? Does it become a roleplaying game then?

It's OB fault if you can miss, and you are not forced to miss intentionally. Actually, in OB the player is forced to interfere with a lot of character actions.

Fact is, whether you choose to utilize it or not, your control over the character allows you the player to do things with your character in Baldurs Gate 2 that he or she would otherwise be unable to do.

No, the "real" results of the actions are only determined by character skills, not by the player's. The reason is said above.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:14 am

No, you are not getting my point at all.

You are supposed to "manage" your character. Even in a PnP RPG you manage your character. You tell the char what will be doing. Supposing you want him/her to cast a destruction spell. Well your work there is over. The character will try to cast the spell, but it may succeed or not. Then you want him to unlock that door. You tell him to unlock it. Here your work is over. He/she will try to unlock that door and the result will be only depending on his/her skill. You have in no way to interfere with the character job that may influence his/her work, the final result of his/her action. That's what I'm try to explain about player/character separation.

Then you can use all the tactics you may need. Tactics are part of what you decide the character will do, the order of his/her actions and so on. The rest is up to the character.

It's OB fault if you can miss, and you are not forced to miss intentionally. Actually, in OB the player is forced to interfere with a lot of character actions.

No, the "real" results of the actions are only determined by character skills, not by the player's. The reason is said above.

Exactly. Games like Fallout (1, 2, and Tactics), Arcanum, etc. reflect this heavily.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:44 am

No, you are not getting my point at all.

You are supposed to "manage" your character. Even in a PnP RPG you manage your character. You tell the char what will be doing. Supposing you want him/her to cast a destruction spell. Well your work there is over. The character will try to cast the spell, but it may succeed or not. Then you want him to unlock that door. You tell him to unlock it. Here your work is over. He/she will try to unlock that door and the result will be only depending on his/her skill. You have in no way to interfere with the character job that may influence his/her work, the final result of his/her action. That's what I'm try to explain about player/character separation.

Then you can use all the tactics you may need. Tactics are part of what you decide the character will do, the order of his/her actions and so on. The rest is up to the character.

But you're choosing an arbitrary point at which you stop calling it roleplaying. Tactics is a skill also, and your characters skills are supposed to be most important. Or for example puzzles or riddles, if all RPG's used this idea then when you got to a puzzle it would basically just be "your character solves the puzzle/riddle" or "your character can't solve the puzzle/riddle." But since that's not at all fun, developers present the puzzle for the player to solve instead of just having the character do it.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing that games like Baldurs Gate aren't roleplaying, I'm arguing that games where player skill factors in are also roleplaying.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:10 am

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing that games like Baldurs Gate aren't roleplaying, I'm arguing that games where player skill factors in are also roleplaying.

I won't say that you can't (or shouldn't) roleplay the space marine when playing doom, but (for me ~on the characters side of things) a good roleplaying game is one that creates a good marionette, not a good mask.

A marionette show is entirely the puppeteer's skill, and is also entirely in character. :shrug:

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:37 am

Doom isn't a roleplaying game because it doesn't have CHOICE, which is the essence of roleplaying for me.

I also didn't think Oblivion was a great roleplaying game, but not because of some arbitrary player/character skill thing, but because there was no real dialogue or real choices. New Vegas was much more of an RPG even though player skill was just as important. So was Mass Effect 1 & 2, even though they didn't have a lot of the things associated with RPG's.

Diablo, despite being character skill driven (IIRC i haven't played it in forever), wasn't a true RPG for me because there was zero choice and dialogue.

I do think the player/character skill differential has a place, but it's not what makes a game an RPG for me. It's possible to be both an action game and an RPG.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:08 pm

Nowhere. Get Dark Souls, it's gonna be better.

» Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:46 pm

But you're choosing an arbitrary point at which you stop calling it roleplaying.

I think it's pretty clear now what is my "threshold" beyond that I stop calling it roleplaying, I feel like I'm repeating myself thousands of times...

Tactics is a skill also, and your characters skills are supposed to be most important. Or for example puzzles or riddles, if all RPG's used this idea then when you got to a puzzle it would basically just be "your character solves the puzzle/riddle" or "your character can't solve the puzzle/riddle." But since that's not at all fun, developers present the puzzle for the player to solve instead of just having the character do it.

tactics is a skill of the player. You may use it, or not, it's up to you. as I said you have to manage your character(s), so tactics here is implicitly involved. And as for Puzzles/riddles, well those are made for the player, not for the characters. As you justly said it could end up with a simple "your character can('t) solve the puzzle/riddle" message, and it's not that fun, yes.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing that games like Baldurs Gate aren't roleplaying, I'm arguing that games where player skill factors in are also roleplaying.

And I'm saying the exatc opposite, as you may have noticed so far.

Baldur's Gate is a great RPG.

And another notice. Games that are more inclined to be RPG are turn-based (or semi-turn based, like BG) games.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:16 pm

And another notice. Games that are more inclined to be RPG are turn-based (or semi-turn based, like BG) games.

weelll .... Fallout was [meant to be] turnbased, Baldur's Gate was Realtime with pause. I don't (personally) think TB is a requirement for RPG's; But... I do think that it offers tremendous advantages for them.

» Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:41 am

weelll .... Fallout was [meant to be] turnbased, Baldur's Gate was Realtime with pause. I don't (personally) think TB is a requirement for RPG's; But... I do think that it offers tremendous advantages for them.

no no, don't get me wrong, I didn't say that it's a requirement. I only meant that a real time game "may" have less RPG elements than a turn-based one. But you can have a real time game that is a lot more RPG of a turn based one, of course.