next »

[s0]

Sure you play a role in something like Civilization

the "role" you play in civilization is very abstract tho. i mean sure you're playing a leader/ruler in some sense but the game mechanics have very little to do with what a politician would do irl (in any imaginable political system). the idea of playing a concrete character isn't really important in civ and i doubt anyone really thinks of the game in those terms.

i have a bit of a problem with "every game is a roleplaying game" type stuff because imo "playing a role" isnt the same as "controlling a character". the roleplaying has to be in the mechanics, i.e. you have to have the ability to define who your character(s) is/are in the game's world to a certain extent.  mario is always going to be mario, lara is always going to be lara, guybrush is always going to be guybrush etc. otoh your fallout character is not always going to be the same person.

[Posthuman Wizard]

i.e. you have to have the ability to define who your character(s) is/are in the game's world to a certain extent.  mario is always going to be mario, lara is always going to be lara, guybrush is always going to be guybrush etc. otoh your fallout character is not always going to be the same person.

But wouldn't that exclude games like The Witcher and Deus Ex? Geralt can make different choices, but he'll always be Geralt.

[s0]

deus ex: no. you get to define who exactly JC is through story choices and stats and you can even customize his "real name" and his face.

the witcher: yes. the game is based on a book series and is constrained by that. you don't really have any opportunity to act "out of character" as geralt.

btw i meant that as a definition of "roleplaying in games" not a definition of "rpg" videogames. a game w/o any roleplaying can still be an rpg.

[Posthuman Wizard]

Role-playing is a pretty vague term, and I think we have different definitions for it. I've always considered it to be playing a role in the narrative, and not necessarily playing a role as a character, and in effect being nigh-synonymous with "choice and consequence," with the level of which in the Witcher being significant enough so that it would qualify as a game with role-playing.

I've never been a fan of "RPG" as a separate term from "role-playing game." Is stat juggling as a mechanic really enough to differentiate a game as its own genre? At the very least, I've never really felt like the character builds in popular video games have been deep enough to differentiate them as something other than a sub-category (i.e. "adventure games with stats," but I'm generally opposed to that level of pigeonholing); the gap is far narrower than the one between tabletop war games and pen and paper role-playing games.

[resentfullymad]

Can you make good RPG with combat system? Can you make good RPG without combat system ?

Why are you making this game, and for who exactly ?

[Graham-]

what's the "role" you play in tetris?

You play a guy who plays tetris - a "person."

[Muz]

There was this table in a book:


I think it defines a RPG pretty well (like Mr Sinner says, a RPG, not actual role-playing). Social interaction is on the 'medium' scale for these games, maybe even lower. RPGs aren't about roleplaying anymore.

But a very large portion of what defines a "RPG" is economy. This may not necessarily take the place of stat-juggling and battle, but too many components of economy involve battles. Combat involves attrition of HP and MP (attrition being defined as something where both sides pay a cost to make the other lose a higher cost). The option of combat allows people to decide whether progression (a quest/goal) is worth losing HP for.

You can probably make a full RPG by substituting something like hostile finances (ala Catan). Just take a strategy game, remove some tactical elements and add in more progression and you have yourself a RPG. It's not an easy task, though.

(footnote: I was going to call Monopoly a hostile economics game then realized that despite it being economically themed, it has little to do with handling economics. It's better classed as an adventure game where progression depends on negotiation skill)

[Graham-]

I like your classification of monopoly. I think it is accurate.

Are you saying battle is necessary because it is about "economy." Can you expand?

[JWK5]

It's been my experience that in most of the RPGs I've played there is a very clear divide between story and combat. Other than boss battles the enemies are just kind of "there", they have no real stake or explanation in the story and more often than not they don't even really have any connection to their environment either. Just random monster designs

I don't think RPGs need a combat system, I think it is just conventional to have one. In Skyrim you can almost play the game non-violent using the illusion magic school to pacify the enemy or make them flee, and pick pockets to acquire the keys you need from NPCs. They trap you into killing or fighting some characters, of course, but I can see that the game could have easily had a pacifist or verbal conflict route rather than requiring direct combat.

Most RPGs are about conflict, so I don't think you will get an "RPG" vibe without conflict of some sort, but I think there are many more forms of conflict that can be tapped into than just violence. I personally would prefer both; having the option to be violent gives more weight and power to choosing not to make use of it and finding another way.

EDIT: After a little Google searching, it turns out if you are not trying to complete all the quests and just do a straight pacifist run through Skyrim then Alduin is the only kill you have to make.

[Muz]

Are you saying battle is necessary because it is about "economy." Can you expand?

It's about linking economy with progression.

Your progression might be along the lines of "kill the warlock". The GM determines that the Warlock is level 10 or whatever and you need to get 9 levels worth of experience and loot (potions, gear, wands) to get that. Those levels and loot are your "economy" and your "progression".

The convenient way is combat. How else can you get that much loot? How else do you get that much experience and items? You go into caves, kill evil things, and take their moneys.

You can probably make a similar route like robbing houses or working jobs, but who plays a RPG to work at the blacksmith? Harvest Moon is one rare exception of both progression and economics working without combat.

The more I think about this, the more I feel it'd make for a great competition. Who can make a RPG good without any classical monster combat?

[Graham-]

So the economy is the leveling? (In simple terms).

already done: puzzle quest