Do mechanics make the RPG?

[Sternenschweif]

Pazaak doesn't make KOTOR a card game. Roleplaying has to be the games central theme and its an RPG.

True.

My point was that almost every game can be a RPG, if you go for that classic definition of RPG. For example a Yugi-Ho card game can be defined as RPG as soon as it tells a story. (Please never let that happen)

 

[barbzilla]

Well my roommate and I have been working on a game system we have dubbed High Blood for a few years now. It is in the playable stages and we are constantly forcing our other friends to play it so we can work on balance issues (didn't realize how many there would be when we started.) The idea behind it was to create a system that allowed you to be more creative without being bogged down in rules. The problems we have run into are mainly a combination of lack of player creativity in character generation(even the experienced ones have issues) and constant bickering because of the stripped down system giving way to interpretation. We still have fun playing the game, but the system isn't as invisible as we would like. We have even tried having all the rolls be done by the GM to prevent de-immersion. I still think it would work out eventually, but it would have to be marketed to new role players (who will have issues with creativity) so they are not previously biased on a particular system (similar to asking a world of darkness player to use a d20 system).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

In general, mechanical systems exist for RPGs of all sorts for precisely one reason: to mediate success and failure in a difficult task. Because of this these rules for conflict resolution are necessary only in the sense that judging success without them would be entirely arbitrary. Indeed it can be said that the heart of any type of game is the rules that govern play.

But this leads perhaps to the more pertinent question: does a particular implementation of rules define the RPG and to this I would answer a definitive no. The letter representing "Game" in RPG dictates that rules of some variety exist but the other two do not offer any specification as to what those rules ought to look like. In the purest form, Role Playing is simply improvisational acting, an endeavor that is defined by few rules or conventions. But, unfortunately, computers are only capable of calculation. They cannot improvise but they can be random. They cannot innovate but they can iterate. Because of this the electronic interpretation has ever been defined by a system of rules that were trivially easy to implement. But these same rules tend to work from a basic set of assumptions.

Take the original Mass Effect as an example. The player becomes a key agent of the Council, the Captain of a fantastic space fairing vessel and the leader of a crew that numbers in the dozens. As a person of importance and worth, why then is it his job to play the role of Quartermaster and Armorer? Why must he collect the items and determine their worthiness and modify them for use by a particular person? Why must he figure out a way to move the stock of unnecessary items and handle the acquisition of new ones? Why must he an agent of the Council, pay out of pocket for gear he needs to fulfill the Council's orders? The reason is incredibly simple: because D&D (and countless other games inspired by D&D) did precisely that.

What people tend to want, even if they never express this notion, is control but the question is really, what part of this system offers control and what part is mindless busywork better done by the computer in the background? Consider this alternative system that, more or less, does away with the inventory system entirely:

The player can choose to swap only pieces of their own gear and in this they are free to make their decision with as few restrictions as possible. Members that would be his party have preferences defined by their role. One character for example might favor a sniper rifle and light armor but another might want to use a shotgun and heavy armor. Rather than choosing a specific piece of gear to fit this desire the player would instead make simpler decisions. The person in heavy armor might favor the suit with the highest damage reduction or perhaps a suit with the strongest shield or even a suit with the most upgrade slots. The player could then simply define that a character, say Ashley, ought to be concerned with shield Strength as the most important attribute followed by Armor Level followed by upgrade slots. If Ashley was in the party she would then be assigned the suit that best met those preferences without the player having to scroll through an enormous list of items looking for the object that best matches his preference. A similar system could be used for any assignable inventory system. The player then could define his inventory preferences through the quartermaster NPC or even in a brief screen at arrival in any port with a store. Once characters are assigned gear according to the preferences already set, Shepard could say to "sell everything else" or "sell only the cheapest (and therefore worst) items" and so forth. The quartermaster could also look for any items that are better than the ones he has currently assigned and automatically purchase them or, if the player wants, offer this truncated list to the player for a final decision.

While there are still plenty of details left out such a system reduces the inventory management to an absolute minimum while still retaining exactly the same level of control. This seems to be the inherent problem with the complaint regarding ME2 where people lamented the loss of the inventory system in the first place: they did not really miss the pointless busy work inherent to the system but rather the loss of control that system offered.

 

[Mouse One]

Wow, thanks guys. Some really insightful comments here!

Agreed. Without SOME system inplace, game mechanics become arbitrary. That was the problem with purely narrative based PnP RPGs (imho). After a point, without mechanics, PnP games just became a bunch of guys sitting around spinning yarns. CRPGs without mechanics would just become a series of Choose Your Own Cutscenes (not to say that's awful, look at Heavy Rain).

Essentially, abilities tie into that feeling of knowing what we can do. Can you sew, or can't you? But is it so quantifiable? I know I can't sew, but I'm not sure if my wife is a level 9 or 13 sewer. I just know she can fix my pants when I tear a hole in them. Where she stands in the grand hierarchy of tailors, I haven't a clue.

But there is something we process almost as intuitively--quantity. "I have more health" versus "I have less health." Believe it or not, that creates a more realistic sense of how your character feels than those dozens of meters and animations would. If someone asks you how you feel, you don't spend ten minutes assessing. You know immediately. The "HP bar" serves the same function. So, there's no way around having those stats. We need them to approximate the calculations our brains are doing constantly, but we need it in a format that is so simple there's no guessing needed..

So, to a certain extent, those mechanics are shorthand. Obviously, we don't feel what the character feels. But are there ways we can express things in a less intrusive, frankly clunky way? Shooters have that "red mist" that descends as the character gets weaker. As corny as that is, I find it more immersive. Mirror's Edge only had that, without any HP indication at all. I never wondered if my character was injured or not.

I suppose what I'm saying here is-- yes, seeing those stats serve a function, or we'd have got rid of them. But are there better ways of giving the same information?

However, it is true that you can effectively hide these system behind vagueness or the complete omission of numerical values. The system mechanics can still exist, however, the player must engage in tasks of trial-and-error in order to figure out what works best, which can be its own reward if the game handles this process well.

Or, in other words, Power Gamers will be Power Gamers? No doubt you're right. I definitely think that a feeling of "control" is key to RPGs, and figuring out the optimum builds and strategies adds to that feeling of control for many. You make choices, and are rewarded for them.

But are we really making these choices? Or are there only a few optimum builds, in which case the choice is really "have a good character" vs. "have a bad character"? There's a great Extra Credits on "The Illusion of Choice" that's worth a watch if you have time, but the gist of it is that if there's really only one optimum path, there's no real choice. So why not just autolevel, or pick between two or three specializations and have the rest autoleveling? I know, sacriledge! But if you (like me) look up recommended builds online, are we really doing anything different?

Or, back to my original point-- is the ability to tweak characters to be optimal an integral part of RPGs, or just a hold over from old PnP days?

Honestly though, I dont know why the shooter genre gets off so easily. There are never people questioning that particular genre, suggesting it needs to "evolve" (copy and paste content from other genres) because its "stagnant" (despite being the most stagnant genre of all, where what little innovation comes from competative multiplayer).

I think you're unfair to shooters. For every Call of Duty, there's more and more Half Lives and Bioshocks which DO have a storyline and a defined character. But they're not RPGs. Why? In all, you get better weaponry (abilities) as time goes on, and sometimes inventory choices. Personally, I'd say it's because the game is "on rails", and you have little choice about what happens next. Still, to be fair, Bioshock had alternate endings based on character actions, and if you felt a bit led by the nose...(won't spoil things, but it had narrative sense).

So why is Bioshock a shooter and Neverwinter Nights an RPG? Is it just the mechanics? Or is that secondary to the ability to explore the world?

Yep. Mechanics and gameplay elements have to define a genre. Or else everything would become muddled and unrecognizable.

But isn't that just a marketing issue? Not that that's a bad thing. We want to know what's in the package, and it helps when we're looking for a new game-- click on "RPG" on Steam and search for new releases. But beyond that, are we stifling the genre by insisting it stays like an electronic version of D&D? Eclectic has a great example here:

Take the original Mass Effect as an example. The player becomes a key agent of the Council, the Captain of a fantastic space fairing vessel and the leader of a crew that numbers in the dozens. As a person of importance and worth, why then is it his job to play the role of Quartermaster and Armorer? Why must he collect the items and determine their worthiness and modify them for use by a particular person? Why must he figure out a way to move the stock of unnecessary items and handle the acquisition of new ones? Why must he an agent of the Council, pay out of pocket for gear he needs to fulfill the Council's orders? The reason is incredibly simple: because D&D (and countless other games inspired by D&D) did precisely that.

To quote Oscar Wilde in an old Monty Python sketch, "I wish I had said that". I also like the alternate inventory system Dreck proposed.

Again, thanks all. Good reads all around. And I've never played Zelda, but you guys have my curiosity up now.

Finally, I suck at Pazaak.

 

[Zaik]

Properly done, that would be a great idea.

Of course, properly done, most competent ideas turn out good. Problem is generally they aren't.

But as far as rpgs go, it's more or less all about the mechanics for me. A story isn't a good reason to trudge through a nightmare of fail. I can skip cutscenes or turn sound/subtitles off if the story is so bad it hurts, as long as the actual game part of the game is fun.

 

[Bostur]

The thing that strikes me, however, is how stuck in the old school of dice rolling and statistical analysis cRPGs still are. I always thought that seeing all the scaffolding was a necessary evil of PnP games, and that hiding them would enhance immersion . Remember those Dungeon Master screens that the charts and dice rolls would hide behind? But the players of RPGs don't seem to want to give up all the unrealistic accoutrements of their paper brethren. They aren't satisfied with "This sword does more damage, but is a bit slow". They want to know the exact DPS, and they want to know the exact effects of character's characteristics, not just "Frodo is quick and can hide pretty well, better than some elves".

In games we need some kind of feedback. When we get hit in the head with an axe we need to know how much it hurts. Numbers can do that, blood on the 'visor' is another way. I guess numbers allow for a bit more precision, while blood is a bit more immediate. So in a way that difference is similar to the difference between an analogue and a digital display trading accuracy for speed.
So slow paced tactical games prefer accurate numbers, while fast paced action based games use fast blood.

"This sword does more damage, but is a bit slow"
How much more damage and how much slower? We wouldn't be able to make a decision between the dagger and the sword unless the description is more accurate.
Dragon Age is a perfect example of this. It has some modes that can be toggled on and off. They have this kind of description "You do more damage, but attack slower". That description provides no information at all because the significant bit is how much more damage, and how much slower.
A better description could be "In this mode damage is higher overall, but your character is less responsive". But now the scaffolding is already starting to show. The description starts to refer to game mechanics like "character" and "responsiveness". I guess we need the scaffolding because thats our link to the imaginary world. We can try to sugar coat it with realistic descriptions, but I think we would just need to translate it back to numbers in our mind.

 

[Sternenschweif]

In games we need some kind of feedback. When we get hit in the head with an axe we need to know how much it hurts. Numbers can do that, blood on the 'visor' is another way. I guess numbers allow for a bit more precision, while blood is a bit more immediate. So in a way that difference is similar to the difference between an analogue and a digital display trading accuracy for speed.
So slow paced tactical games prefer accurate numbers, while fast paced action based games use fast blood.

"This sword does more damage, but is a bit slow"
How much more damage and how much slower? We wouldn't be able to make a decision between the dagger and the sword unless the description is more accurate.
Dragon Age is a perfect example of this. It has some modes that can be toggled on and off. They have this kind of description "You do more damage, but attack slower". That description provides no information at all because the significant bit is how much more damage, and how much slower.
A better description could be "In this mode damage is higher overall, but your character is less responsive". But now the scaffolding is already starting to show. The description starts to refer to game mechanics like "character" and "responsiveness". I guess we need the scaffolding because thats our link to the imaginary world. We can try to sugar coat it with realistic descriptions, but I think we would just need to translate it back to numbers in our mind.

You think not far enough. Instead of numbers you still can use other terms. In a Fantasy RPG for example you could have some sort of sword. This Sword was made of Steel, has a weight of 5 kilo (sorry european here) and was sharpened with a hardened grinding wheel. In order to find out, if it is better or not than some other sword you have to evaluate the quality of a material, the weight and the method of sharpening. In that case the material could make the durability and the base damage. The weight goes for attack Speed and the method of sharpening would say something about damage/critical bonuses.

Only Problem here would be that the Player would need to think and evaluate the sword himself. To simply evaluate two different swords by just comparing the 'DpS'-numbers is laziness.

 

[Bostur]

You think not far enough. Instead of numbers you still can use other terms. In a Fantasy RPG for example you could have some sort of sword. This Sword was made of Steel, has a weight of 5 kilo (sorry european here) and was sharpened with a hardened grinding wheel. In order to find out, if it is better or not than some other sword you have to evaluate the quality of a material, the weight and the method of sharpening. In that case the material could make the durability and the base damage. The weight goes for attack Speed and the method of sharpening would say something about damage/critical bonuses.

Only Problem here would be that the Player would need to think and evaluate the sword himself. To simply evaluate two different swords by just comparing the 'DpS'-numbers is laziness.

Attributes like Iron, Steel, Adamantium - or various types of grinding wheels will of course hide the numbers somewhat and add a bit of flavour. But I think I would start translating those to some kind of numeric scale after a while, at least if I need accurate readings.

In a shooter, if my health status is represented by spots of blood on my screen I may start making the connection that 3 spots of blood equals 25% health and 5 spots of blood equals death. In this case the abstraction is rather shallow and I'd probably prefer a numerical reading of sorts, or a health bar.

Of course a game can be made in a way so we don't need accurate readings. If there's only 2 different swords in the game a rusty longsword and a hardened steel longsword, the choice is obvious and we don't need any numerical statistics.

In the sword example I think it really boils down to my inability to realistically evaluate the quality since the sword isn't real, and I don't know the world, the materials and what makes a good sword. It's not like I can hold it and swing it. Other types of evaluations that I do in games where numbers are hidden is to see what vendors will pay for the swords, then I can judge the aproximate quality based on that number. But I do need to somehow get enough data about the sword, or make them myself by testing it in combat.
One novel approach I can think of, is to hide the details, and then have a smith in the game that you could ask for an opinion of the craftmanship. I do think that would end up being tedious after a while and is just another way of hiding numbers that we need to get somehow.

I don't mind being lazy in a game, if that means I can skip some tedious gameplay. ;-)

 

[Sternenschweif]

Now i really don't understand you.

First is that rifles, gun and even grenades in our modern world do have specific information in numbers. Like caliber, outgoing bullet speed, amount of explosives in weight and more. The 3-5 spot of blood thing is a little too far off the imaginable. DpS still wouldn't be anything I'd use.

And the second problem i have is, that: What do you need that for? In a shooter you shoot as long as the enemy moves. Same goes for RPG. You hit the evil demon with your sword until it is dead. Numbers can be hidden and even if a life bar has no numbers, you still can see when you're almost dead or full health. Depending on the game mechanic you require a quality level of that sword to be able to defeat the demon. Especially in single player games it doesn't make any difference, if you have the Mithril Sword or the 40 DpS sword. The mithril sword just feels more like role playing. In small group multiplayer RPG (like you could do in Neverwinter Nights 2) you still don't need numbers. What it would be good for, if i play with a group of friends, that just want to complete a campaign together?

I understand that you need those numbers for MMORPG, but those arn't a matter of concern here (i think). But i start to think, that this is your problem with the numbers. People getting used to simple crap and the evil game industry has to pick it up in order to make games for everyone.

(Yes, i know! Neverwinter Nights 2 is a very bad example, but it has that type of multiplayer I was talking about.)

 

[Bostur]

Well if a game is supposed to have tactical, economic or management gameplay value, players need enough information to make those kind of decisions. Of course it depends on what kind of game it is and what it tries to accomplish. A number can't be hidden if the player is expected to make a decision based on the number.

In a shooter most numbers are not needed, so they are hidden.
In a game that is mostly about story you can hide all the numbers. Look at old fashioned adventure games, either graphical or text for an example of this.

The computer RPG genre is a bit of an odd invention. They are based on pen and paper RPGs, but are very different games. They have basically taken the mechanics of RPGs and made a unique genre of that. So if you remove the mechanics you moved into a completely separate genre. They are squad based tactical games with stats and story ;-)
Keep in mind that for some players managing those numbers is actually a large part of the game. They can be presented with some measure of creativity as you described, but they are still numbers.

 

[Sternenschweif]

I remember the theory crafting of some older MMO's and D&D. Yeah, that makes some sense. Tons of calculation (I usually didn't understand) for one purpose. Compare the characters. In Singleplayers maybe that's in use for some In-crowd I never was part of. But as you said "The computer RPG genre is a bit of an odd invention." Too many different opinions of how it should be done. But as long as Dragon Age 3 won't be as crappy as part 2, I'll be happy

 

[Mouse One]

Well, looks as if I'm not the only one who wonders at this:

http://kotaku.com/#!5785206/why-do-our-role+playing-games-still-need-numbers-everywhere

Excellent read, although I'd expand the question beyond numbers. There are quite a few other RPG conventions such as levels and inventory management that strike me as holdovers from old PnP games like D&D. Often they seem wildly out of place: I loved Mass Effect, but honestly, a "6th level Soldier"? Is that a new, futuristic rank system, sort of like a Petty Officer Second Class or some such? Or remember the ship's literal store in the cargo hold "Sorry sir, I know we're fighting to save Humanity and the Galaxy, but I need 100,000 credits before you can have that new assault rifle". Couldn't the guy at least spot the CO a loan?

The computer RPG genre is a bit of an odd invention. They are based on pen and paper RPGs, but are very different games. They have basically taken the mechanics of RPGs and made a unique genre of that. So if you remove the mechanics you moved into a completely separate genre. They are squad based tactical games with stats and story ;-)
Keep in mind that for some players managing those numbers is actually a large part of the game. They can be presented with some measure of creativity as you described, but they are still numbers.

Well said, and it echos my feelings as well. Truthfully, even if you had a perfect immersive game, many would want to see those numbers. Again with Mass Effect: in ME2, the game didn't list the precise damage, but rather described guns as "more effective at long range than other shotguns" and the like. It didn't stop fans from peeking at the code and figuring out the exact DPS and ranges. Why did they do that? Because, as Bostur says, it was part of the game for them.

And really, is witholding info from the players the real goal here? Put like that, it does sound a bit silly. I'm a big boy, I can autolevel and ignore exact stats if I want to. I paid for the game, after all. If someone else wants to see all the "scaffolding", who am I-- or the game company-- to tell him no?

The answer, at least for me, is that a game needs to replace what's already there with something better. Don't just get rid of busywork like crafting, but replace it with something more fun, more engaging, possibly a quest to help someone who makes what you need. No one is going to worry too much about the details of a weapon if the combat is more than "swing swing *special power!* swing oh look it's dead". Don't just tell me so and so is a wizard who can spit fire out his right nostril, introduce him as he's doing it (and please, make powers in cutscenes actually work ingame)

I might be rambling away from my first point, but it really does all tie together. RPGs may very well still come out that are like Bostur's "squad based tactical games with stats and story". But to truly pull someone into that story, a game has to stop making the player an omnipotent observer and turn them into an interested participant. This isn't a plea for realism (bleh!), but for game mechanics that mesh with the narrative and world building that the game is set in.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

sorry, way to long to read fully, but while I skimmed it, I picked up on something. You said how you didn't like seeing how the game worked, but personally, I love it. I hate wow for hiding a lot of the information about their talents recently. they used to say, does attack power + weapon damage, or whatever it did, and I loved that. and now it just says, does a lot of damage, or something like that. I guess I'm just saying that i like seeing how the game works, it makes it more fun for me.

 

[Mouse One]

snip

sorry, way to long to read fully, but while I skimmed it, I picked up on something. You said how you didn't like seeing how the game worked, but personally, I love it. I hate wow for hiding a lot of the information about their talents recently. they used to say, does attack power + weapon damage, or whatever it did, and I loved that. and now it just says, does a lot of damage, or something like that. I guess I'm just saying that i like seeing how the game works, it makes it more fun for me.

No worries about skimming it, I accept the notion that not everyone wants to savor every snippet of deathless prose I spew from my keyboard

I will say that while we've all been talking about the visibility/non-visibility of the mechanics, I'm also talking about the mechanics proper. But certainly the former issue is important to the "feel" of the game, and I know there's a lot of guys like you who enjoy getting the max out of their builds and strategies. That's hard, perhaps impossible to do without actually peeking at the formulae for calculating combat, leveling, etc.

So I get that there's a dedicated group out there who like RPGs as they are, what an above poster called a combination strategy/story game. I've never been adverse to seeing all the weapon stats in Warhammer Dawn of War, for example. I probably play the campaign game in DOW2 very much like some cRPG fans play their favorite game. After all, when you hear about someone doing 10 runs of Dragon Age, one has to imagine that the story isn't quite as compelling as it was the first time-- what's left is strategy and tactics.

As I said, I've my own preferences, but I'm not pretending that they're the only valid ones.

 

[Sternenschweif]

I really start to hate the "Mechanics doesn't make the RPG, it's all about the story and blah...." statement. The story telling is a mechanic itself in computer RPGs. For the most players a good story is very important in RPG, but it is still a mechanic. That mechanic limits the possibilities a players has or doesn't have.

An example for good story telling mechanics would be Dragon Age: Origins. (Just an example! I'd take my favorite classic Fallout 2, but half of the people wouldn't understand, what I'm talking about.) In there even picking a different race, gender or skill had effect on the story telling. It's hidden behind words and cut-scenes, but what you pick effects. Action and it's response is a mechanic. Little example in the game: In order to become a Blood mage you have to make a deal with a demon, who has possessed a boy. If you decline, you can't become the blood mage and have to fight, that demon. If you accept, you'd be a blood mage and just leave the boy's soul. In the Outro of the game it has only the little effect, that this boy becomes a good mage student or disappears after 4 years. Small things like that make a good story telling mechanic. To let the player feel like you have influence on what happens.

An example for bad story telling mechanics would be Dragon Age 2 (Just an example! Can't believe myself, that this is supposed to be the same series.) In there you have still a lot of decisions to make, which doesn't effect anything. After finishing it twice you'll realize, that the game choices lead to the same end. Also side quests had no effect of anything in the story and being a blood mage, who all the good people hate, didn't make a difference.

Worst case scenario are the evil JRPGs. (Yes! I know! Complains on JRPGs are old, but that's not the point here. Just an example!) A simple story telling, that doesn't allow the player to take any influence on the things happening. The only mechanic here would be that game triggers a cut-scene at a certain point of the game.

 

[thom_cat_]

I'm currently doing a first year games (Digital art) course and have to make a Dragon Age: Origins mod... not my style of game, but they have been constantly hammering home that the rule-set is what makes RPGs work.

Like how you get the D&D handbook and then work from there and you can combine all these frickin books to make your own experience and rules.
Games are like that 'cept the rules are more restricted and the story is mostly already realised.

 

[Bostur]

Having spent my last few posts defending the traditional view and the use of numbers, I think I'd like to change the course a bit, because the issue is not black and white of course.

The answer, at least for me, is that a game needs to replace what's already there with something better. Don't just get rid of busywork like crafting, but replace it with something more fun, more engaging, possibly a quest to help someone who makes what you need. No one is going to worry too much about the details of a weapon if the combat is more than "swing swing *special power!* swing oh look it's dead". Don't just tell me so and so is a wizard who can spit fire out his right nostril, introduce him as he's doing it (and please, make powers in cutscenes actually work ingame)

Replacing old mechanics with something better, absolutely. You mention ME and I always found it weird that they were hanging on to the concept of levels, when the only effect of levels was +2 skill points. They could have just added the points and maybe after 10 points give the character a promotion with a nice title. Maybe even a little cut scene where Shephard hands out a stripe, everyone cheers, gets drunk and has casual sex.
We don't need the number for levels so the game would just be better by removing it, we do need the number for +2 skill points in some form though.

In the same way fantasy RPGs don't necessarily need to be based upon the 6 stats of AD&D, as most unfortunately seems to do out of lazyness.


The article you linked was a very interesting read. One of the things I noted, that may not have been the intention of the author is how wide an audience RPGs are able to attract, simply because players can choose to focus on different aspects of the game.

A very small snippet from the article:

Mana points don't make an RPG. Role-playing and questing do.

However this could easily be changed into a lot of other point of views of computer RPGs.

- Roleplaying doesn't make an RPG, tactical combat does.
- Tactical combat doesn't make an RPG, character development does.
- Character development doesn't make an RPG, team management does.
- Questing doesn't make an RPG, story does.

In reality I think most players have their own balance of game elements that they like to focus on. Computer RPGs borrow concepts from most game genres, if a few of those concepts are consolidated the end result is simply moving the RPG into one of the core game genres - shooter, tactical game, adventure game, management game etc. And nothing wrong with that, personally I'd love to see more good adventure games but I think the RPG genre has its own merits.