RPG - why stats matter

[Traun]

Now recently there was a thread, still active, about RPG mechanics. Now what this thread was about doesn't matter, however I noticed that a lot of people do not understand the benefit and, if I may say so, of character statistics - especially the +1 str/dex/end. ones.

How to say this - imagine that I and three of my friends, let's call them Peach, Duke and Mandork start playing a single player RPG at the same time, the four of us are warriors. Now let's say, for the given example, that there is a group of goblins we all meet at one point. Based on those stats every single one of us would experience the game differently, here is what would probably happen.

Peach is using a warrior with high strength and moderate dexterity who wields two blades. For her the battle is about dodging the enemy, splitting them and dealing damage.
Duke is a two-handed warrior beefed up with high strength and moderate endurance. He charges in and deals more damage than they do, he survives, but is on low health and needs to rest.
I am a sword & shield warrior with moderate strength and high endurance. I fight them longer than my friends did, but during the battle, due to the shield, high armor and endurance, I was able to overcome my enemies before they killed me.
Mandork is also a sword & shield warrior, however he is developed like Duke, with high strenght and moderate endurance. He overpowers his enemies, however because he doesn't have the high damage output of Duke or my endurance he had to use a potion.

All of us engaged in the same battle, with the same enemies, however when we meet we are able to tell different stories. If I decide to play a warrior again, but develop my character in a different manner, than that battle would provide a completely foreign feel.

Furthermore, stats allow you to create your character and those numbers are way more character-defining than any backstory made by a developer. I can decide whatever my character is strong, intelligent or fast.

Forgive me for the comparision, but if we take Shephard for example, if you pick vanguard you are stuck charging at enemies with a shotgun, if you pick Infiltrator you will shoot with rifle and nothing more. In contrast even after you picked Revan's Jedi class you could still develop him to use blaster or gadgets and still had the choice whatever to use a single blade, two sabers or dual-blade. You see, Bioware provided me with a backstory for Revan, they left little to the imagination, however because I can give him the stats to play the way I like it I never, for a moment, doubted that he is my Revan. In contrast Shephard, despite having three backstories to choose from, is not my character, he's Bioware's.

And this is why stats matter. Mind you I am not saying that every game should have them, just saying that they play a great role in helping the player customize their character beyond appearance (despite not having any control over the backstory, gender or outer appearance of The Nameless One you've never heard anyone say "That's not a RPG!"

Some common points raised in this thread.

"Real" vs Fictional character

We all create something for out character in our head - this is great, this is what roleplaying is. However statistcs allow us to transfer some of that into actuall gameplay.

Stats = DnD

I would like to clarify - statistics doesn't mean dice rolls. For example Dragon Age and The Elder Scrolls don't use dice rolls to determent the way numbers work. If I dare insert my own opinion into this the Dungeons and Dragons Dice system is bad for video games, mostly because we can take advantage of massive computational power and use a system that is easier to understand (for example World of Warcraft - you see the number - the bigger the number the better).

in fact I am not advocating DnD style RPG's nor am I against Action RPG's( in fact Action RPG's can be quite good - M&B for example). I am just saying that statistics enrich the gameplay expirience.

 

[bob1052]

Everything you said is completely correct, also, everything you said is "meaningless" and being cut from Mass Effect 3

 

[Traun]

Everything you said is completely correct, also, everything you said is "meaningless" and being cut from Mass Effect 3

Let's not drag this into the thread, at least not in the first five pages.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Ironically "role playing games" are actually defined by the numbers and not the role playing (biggest misnomer ever) so, yeah, stats are important to RPGs. The funny thing is that programatically every game is a big number crunching stat machine, RPGs just give you more play with them and make them more evident.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The problem is you don't need stats to do this. Take Borderlands - no stats to speak of beyond those of your gun and your shield, and there's an insane degree of customization. Mordecai (to name a few of many examples for one of four characters) can be a gunslinger who runs around in the open and relies on high health and a pet bird for survivability, he can be several flavors of machete-wielder, he can contribute to a big team by maximizing their wealth, or he can snipe in several interesting ways.

Or, actually, take Mass Effect 2 - Vanguards can teleport around with a shotgun (and which shotgun they use affects when and where they'll teleport), they can use the teleport for mobility and focus on grenade spam and cover-based shooting, or at the halfway point of the game they can mix it up with stuff like sniping from behind cover and killing enemies with telekinesis. Infiltrators can use their cloak to be a sniper, a commando, or as an escape tool or way of moving from cover to cover. Each of these characters will have different builds + weapons, and move differently.

Even games like Bad Company 2 offer several different playstyles for each character class - a recon who snipes is going to play entirely different from a recon who runs around with C4 and a shotgun and a recon who mixes it up at mid-range with a semi-auto or full-auto DMR.

tl;dr: it's not the stats, its the flexibility.

 

[SageRuffin]

Why, pray-tell, is a game touted as an RPG if the game itself is more about number-stacking, than, you know, playing a role?

Let's use your example, ME2. Yes, in a sense Shepard belongs to BioWare especially considering a default semi-canon appearance and background, but you're not looking at the character has a whole. Who was your character before the military? What was his (or her) defining achievement thus far? How did he/she handle Jenkins' death? Who was rescued on Virmire? Why?

So yeah, strictly from a gameplay perspective, Shepard belongs to BioWare. But you forget that the ME series and a few other games allow you to establish your own canon. In my own personal ME canon, I have Erika [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/Ruffin316/Hi-Def%20Sage%20Screens/ErikaAllisonShepard3.jpg]. She's from Earth, she's violent [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/Ruffin316/Hi-Def%20Sage%20Screens/Payoff.jpg], she's impatient [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/Ruffin316/Hi-Def%20Sage%20Screens/Problems.jpg], but she's a hell of a sniper and she has a good heart. She'll occasionally go out of her to help others, but cross her and you're gonna end up with a foot in the ass.. She was great friends with Ashley though they didn't agree on everything, has a great respect for Garrus, wanted to roundhouse Jack several times, finds Legion and Samara fascinating, and regrets the loss of Tali when the business with the Collectors when done and over with. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, as the term is.

So yeah, BioWare has their measly, generic John Shepard, and I have my Erika, who plays and acts as I see fit. So to borrow a line from Kahunaburger:

it's not the stats, its the flexibility.

 

[nukethetuna]

Why, pray-tell, is a game touted as an RPG if the game itself is more about number-stacking, than, you know, playing a role?

Let's use your example, ME2. Yes, in a sense Shepard belongs to BioWare especially considering a default semi-canon appearance and background, but you're not looking at the character has a whole. Who was your character before the military? What was his (or her) defining achievement thus far? How did he/she handle Jenkins' death? Who was rescued on Virmire? Why?

So yeah, strictly from a gameplay perspective, Shepard belongs to BioWare. But you forget that the ME series and a few other games allow you to establish your own canon.

So, does that mean that a game like (obvious example incoming) Final Fantasy... whatever, isn't an RPG? The character's backstories, and really even the entire story has a set end-point. Nothing you do is going to change the course of action for the most part. However, you can do what the OP described (in most of them) and make the characters "yours" through statistics.

Now are the Final Fantasy games less "RPG" (or maybe not an RPG at all) compared to something like Mass Effect? I'm actually curious on opinions here, I don't really have one of my own.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Why, pray-tell, is a game touted as an RPG if the game itself is more about number-stacking, than, you know, playing a role?

Let's use your example, ME2. Yes, in a sense Shepard belongs to BioWare especially considering a default semi-canon appearance and background, but you're not looking at the character has a whole. Who was your character before the military? What was his (or her) defining achievement thus far? How did he/she handle Jenkins' death? Who was rescued on Virmire? Why?

So yeah, strictly from a gameplay perspective, Shepard belongs to BioWare. But you forget that the ME series and a few other games allow you to establish your own canon.

So, does that mean that a game like (obvious example incoming) Final Fantasy... whatever, isn't an RPG? The character's backstories, and really even the entire story has a set end-point. Nothing you do is going to change the course of action for the most part. However, you can do what the OP described (in most of them) and make the characters "yours" through statistics.

Now are the Final Fantasy games less "RPG" (or maybe not an RPG at all) compared to something like Mass Effect? I'm actually curious on opinions here, I don't really have one of my own.

RPG is a pretty broad category that includes stuff from Bioshock to ADOM. There's actually a thread going on right now about how nebulous the term is haha.

 

[Traun]

Why, pray-tell, is a game touted as an RPG if the game itself is more about number-stacking, than, you know, playing a role?

Let's use your example, ME2. Yes, in a sense Shepard belongs to BioWare especially considering a default semi-canon appearance and background, but you're not looking at the character has a whole. Who was your character before the military? What was his (or her) defining achievement thus far? How did he/she handle Jenkins' death? Who was rescued on Virmire? Why?

So yeah, strictly from a gameplay perspective, Shepard belongs to BioWare. But you forget that the ME series and a few other games allow you to establish your own canon.

So, does that mean that a game like (obvious example incoming) Final Fantasy... whatever, isn't an RPG? The character's backstories, and really even the entire story has a set end-point. Nothing you do is going to change the course of action for the most part. However, you can do what the OP described (in most of them) and make the characters "yours" through statistics.

Now are the Final Fantasy games less "RPG" (or maybe not an RPG at all) compared to something like Mass Effect? I'm actually curious on opinions here, I don't really have one of my own.

If I may so boldly answer. Final Fantasy, Wizardry and Might and Magic are party based. The personalization of the party depends on the player - for example you will ofter hear players who have played FF 1 argue what is their preferable setup - Warrior/Warrior/White Mage/Dark Mage or Dark Mage/ Dark Mage/ White Mage/ Red Mage or something else, the player in this case controls the whole party so choosing the way the party is set is vital to the roleplaying experience. This continues to this day as you will no doubt hear the conflicting opinions about Vanille in the party. You don't need to have a story in order to be role-playing, gameplay mechanics alone allow for that.

 

[manythings]

Last time I checked "Charging people with a shotgun" and "shooting people with a rifle at long range" were different things.

Stats only matter if you add your story to them. In all your examples they were the same battle fought differently if you cared enough about the narritive in the situation. If you're rolling dice then it was no different than the finesse/force, toughness/evasion divide. Stats don't suddenly make awesome gameplay.

 

[nukethetuna]

If I may so boldly answer. Final Fantasy, Wizardry and Might and Magic are party based. The personalization of the party depends on the player - for example you will ofter hear players who have played FF 1 argue what is their preferable setup - Warrior/Warrior/White Mage/Dark Mage or Dark Mage/ Dark Mage/ White Mage/ Red Mage or something else, the player in this case controls the whole party so choosing the way the party is set is vital to the roleplaying experience. This continues to this day as you will no doubt hear the conflicting opinions about Vanille in the party. You don't need to have a story in order to be role-playing, gameplay mechanics alone allow for that.

Thanks for the answer, I definitely was not thinking of it that way. Does that mean that your game can be role-playing as long as you have some capacity of control over the development of the characters? (Either stat wise, or story-wise)

RPG is a pretty broad category that includes stuff from Bioshock to ADOM. There's actually a thread going on right now about how nebulous the term is haha.

Haha, no kidding. I've kinda disowned the term for myself, but I am just curious what other people believe it means.

 

[SageRuffin]

Why, pray-tell, is a game touted as an RPG if the game itself is more about number-stacking, than, you know, playing a role?

Let's use your example, ME2. Yes, in a sense Shepard belongs to BioWare especially considering a default semi-canon appearance and background, but you're not looking at the character has a whole. Who was your character before the military? What was his (or her) defining achievement thus far? How did he/she handle Jenkins' death? Who was rescued on Virmire? Why?

So yeah, strictly from a gameplay perspective, Shepard belongs to BioWare. But you forget that the ME series and a few other games allow you to establish your own canon.

So, does that mean that a game like (obvious example incoming) Final Fantasy... whatever, isn't an RPG? The character's backstories, and really even the entire story has a set end-point. Nothing you do is going to change the course of action for the most part. However, you can do what the OP described (in most of them) and make the characters "yours" through statistics.

Now are the Final Fantasy games less "RPG" (or maybe not an RPG at all) compared to something like Mass Effect? I'm actually curious on opinions here, I don't really have one of my own.

Speaking purely as an individual, I honestly think so. In fact, that's one thing that's turns me away from most JRPGs. I'm not the character, or even supplanting myself in the characters mind, letting their decisions become my own (i.e. Erika and Jack in ME2 - my own feelings notwithstanding, while Erika eventually helped the biotic convict, she was one "fuck you" away from knocking everyone of Jack's teeth out). Sure, I may be able to make them fight a certain way, but I can't make them behave a certain way. I can't fix anything about the character save how effective he/she is in combat, and maybe change the outfit.

Long story short, those games have their own characters with their own motivations, interests, favorite brand of cotton swabs, snack preferences, masturbatory aids, whatever. In games like ME, Oblivion, Fallout and the like, sure, I can use the default characters with own lives and back-stories, but I'd much rather... say... use a character who's a technical genius [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/Ruffin316/Hi-Def%20Sage%20Screens/SonjasProtonCannon.jpg], walks softly, and carries a boomstick [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/Ruffin316/Hi-Def%20Sage%20Screens/Reload.jpg].

You know, role-playing.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Also...

Last time I checked "Charging people with a shotgun" and "shooting people with a rifle at long range" were different things.

^^

 

[Traun]

If I may so boldly answer. Final Fantasy, Wizardry and Might and Magic are party based. The personalization of the party depends on the player - for example you will ofter hear players who have played FF 1 argue what is their preferable setup - Warrior/Warrior/White Mage/Dark Mage or Dark Mage/ Dark Mage/ White Mage/ Red Mage or something else, the player in this case controls the whole party so choosing the way the party is set is vital to the roleplaying experience. This continues to this day as you will no doubt hear the conflicting opinions about Vanille in the party. You don't need to have a story in order to be role-playing, gameplay mechanics alone allow for that.

Thanks for the answer, I definitely was not thinking of it that way. Does that mean that your game can be role-playing as long as you have some capacity of control over the development of the characters? (Either stat wise, or story-wise)

A fun fact if you will. There are two games considered to be the grandfathers of the RPG genre - Ultima and Wizardry. Ultima was the game in which you had a central character and then gathered companions to move on. In Wizardry you created your whole party from the get-go and worked with it. Both of those are are still of the highest quality. Ultima 4 is currently available as a flash game and Wizardry 7 is abondonware, you may want to give them a try. Anyway my point was that controlling a party instead of a character was there from nearly day 1. You can see the legacy of Ultima in games like Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Planescape:Torment and you can see the legacy of Wizardry in Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.

If you are interested these are really good articles to read: 1 [http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070223a/barton_01.shtml]2 [http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070223b/barton_01.shtml]3 [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1571/the_history_of_computer_.php]

Last time I checked "Charging people with a shotgun" and "shooting people with a rifle at long range" were different things.

My point is that those differences occurs in the same class thanks to simple stat changes, not because you have picked a different class.

Stats only matter if you add your story to them. In all your examples they were the same battle fought differently if you cared enough about the narritive in the situation. If you're rolling dice then it was no different than the finesse/force, toughness/evasion divide. Stats don't suddenly make awesome gameplay.

The types of weapons and the way those weapons were used created the narrative, they are not a fiction of the players imagination but are a consequence of the player decision. This is the difference between imagining your own story and having something solid to show for it (proficiency in weapons, armor class, strength, dexterity, chance to dodge).

But I agree stats won't turn the game awesome in a blink of an eye, in fact they may drag the game down if badly implemented. Sometimes a game can be better without statistics, but that is not my point.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Last time I checked "Charging people with a shotgun" and "shooting people with a rifle at long range" were different things.

My point is that those differences occurs in the same class thanks to simple stat changes, not because you have picked a different class.

You can actually do those things viably in the same class in Mass Effect 2 - infiltrator, soldier, and vanguard are particularly suited to this. That type of flexibility is also present in many games that don't involve stats - Bioshock, and Borderlands, for instance. Even in non-RPGs with a class selection system like Bad Company 2 you can make meaningful build choices within a class that effect how you play the game. The point is that although computer RPGs have pen-and-paper roots, they don't have to adhere to exactly the same formula to exhibit the same degree of character flexibility.

 

[Plurralbles]

this, my friends, is why Mount and Blade is one of hte best RPG's of all time and EVE online is the single best.

They are the definition of an RPG and do hold stats as well.

 

[manythings]

this, my friends, is why Mount and Blade is one of hte best RPG's of all time and EVE online is the single best.

They are the definition of an RPG and do hold stats as well.

Eve is too involved for my sensibilities but I do agree that Mount and Blade is supremely awesome. There are few moments in gaming as satisfying as a perfectly timed strike charging on horseback to take down a heavily armoured foe.

Stats only matter if you add your story to them. In all your examples they were the same battle fought differently if you cared enough about the narritive in the situation. If you're rolling dice then it was no different than the finesse/force, toughness/evasion divide. Stats don't suddenly make awesome gameplay.

The types of weapons and the way those weapons were used created the narrative, they are not a fiction of the players imagination but are a consequence of the player decision. This is the difference between imagining your own story and having something solid to show for it (proficiency in weapons, armor class, strength, dexterity, chance to dodge).

But I agree stats won't turn the game awesome in a blink of an eye, in fact they may drag the game down if badly implemented. Sometimes a game can be better without statistics, but that is not my point.

My main point was the difference is in the playing and the players. If four people at just sitting at the table and it's just "I hit with my sword *roll* and miss", "the goblin pokes with a spear *roll* he hits *roll* for 4 damage", "I cast a heal for *roll* 6 points" then it's just a drag. Good DMing and party interaction really makes the game.

On the topic of controlling a party (a la KotOR) versus controlling a character (Mass Effect) I can mostly take or leave it. I don't know if it would suit a Mass Effect to have you switching characters on the fly, though I think co-op could work well since there is an annoying tendency for teammates to walk in front of the M-982 Cain.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I don't mind stats unless they become aggressively obvious. Take Morrowind for example I spent most of the time literally standing on top of a rat "hitting" it with my spear... Just an endless steam of misses... Fucking hate that game

[sub]Yes i know i suck at Morrowind please don't bother saying "your *insert skill here* wasn't high enough"[/sub]

I prefer to just roleplay Mass Effect style but if you look at Fallout 3 and NV that does seem like a good stats/roleplaying combo now that i think about it...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, yes, building up stats is commonly accepted as being at the core of RPGs. There's no reason why Role Playing Games have to be about stats, instead of, say, role-playing, but that's what the phrase has come to mean. Rather counter-intuitive, yes, but that's how it is.

 

[Ranorak]

I've posted this a couple of times before, but I find it relevant here.

In the beginning, before anyone had heard be name RPG outside of the bedroom, there was Dungeons and Dragons.
Now, DnD had 2 major aspects in it's game.
You had your adventure, the story, the plot, the choices. The Role play.
and, The battles, the skill checks the +5 Hammer of Smiting. The Roll play.

30 years later, and video games have evolved into 2 general directions.
The games who pay more attention to the Role Play, AKA oblivion, Mass Effect, Fable.
And the games that focus more on stats. Final Fantasy, Diablo.

Both have a story, and while you can't actively contribute to the story in a Final Fantasy game. There is still a lot of Role Play. Just not in the form of choices.
Your role is fixed, yes. But, like a actor, you can still crawl into the characters and feel their connection to the world.

Roger Moore didn't get the pick the choices for the Bond the role played.