Thursday, August 06, 2009
Evolving RPG Gameplay? Or Turning It Into Something Else?
There's pretty much a constant din at certain levels of the design-o-sphere for roleplaying games to drop their nerdy foundations and evolve into something else. For some mainstream designers, it seems like the "something else" usually equals, "something more mainstream and marketable and easier to develop," which in turn usually means an action / fighty game that they can slap an "RPG" label on without scaring away the non-geek gamers.
I generally ignore those guys.
However, Jeff Tidball makes a "modest" proposal that it may be time to ditch "strength and levels" in RPGs, and evolve in a new direction. You can read it at The Escapist Magazine:
The Escapist: Roleplaying Evolved
He uses as an example Fallout 3, which still has firm roots in old D&D territory. And, of course, in the earlier Fallout games.
Now I haven't played the dice-and-paper RPG Dogs in the Vineyard, though I've been a little intrigued by what I've heard about it in the past. And maybe I'm completely misunderstanding his point. But it seems to me that if you pulled the stats & levels out of Fallout 3, you'd have.... a first-person shooter. A well-done FPS with an open-ended world that puts Bioshock to shame, but still, it'd be a first-person shooter. Not an RPG.
The greatest "evolutions" in the dice-and-paper arena have been more of what I'd consider expansion into areas such as narrative storytelling. D&D 4E arguably goes back in the direction of the roots of the genre in wargaming - is that "devolution?" Well, some of us who prefer the older systems might call it that - though I won't.
But the big strides seen in some of the indie dice-and-paper RPGs (and just "games" that probably get lumped with RPGs but don't really count - like the indie game InSpectres which I had a lot of fun playing last year) are very socially oriented and depend upon having a thinking, creative human who is supposed to improvising the narrative as much as adjudicate the rules. That's a wonderful idea, but it is very difficult to translate that to a computer RPG. Probably doomed to either failure or radical rules modifications (as we saw in the two computer game incarnations of Vampire: The Masquerade).
Not that it isn't a noble goal to try.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:25 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Yeah, with my vintage CRPG design work, I ended up dropping levels, ability scores, and other elements that weren't a directly needed attribute for determinants. Anytime you have something that's not used directly but used to determine other values, ask yourself how much it's really needed...
Concerning 4E, anyone who says it isn't about role-playing and is too tactical clearly didn't play a lot of 3rd edition, which is just as much of a "de-evolution" to use your snide term.
The proof of this is quite easy... Dungeon magazine. If you read the first 50-60 issues, during the 1st Edition/2nd Edition days, the creativity and imaginative settings and characters in the adventures is extraordinary. Granted, there was some more tactical dungeon crawls here and there, but it seemed that there was more of an effort to make adventures that transcended the rules.
Then 3rd edition came along, and it all became about the monster stats. "Ooo, let's make the bad guy a cleric/wizard/rogue... with the half-fiend template!" That passed for creativity in 3rd edition days for a long time...
When Paizo took over Dungeon and started their Adventure paths, the story quality started to improve again, but it always seemed like opposition and monsters were still a "gaming" challenge, not a narrative one.
Adamantyr
Concerning 4E, anyone who says it isn't about role-playing and is too tactical clearly didn't play a lot of 3rd edition, which is just as much of a "de-evolution" to use your snide term.
The proof of this is quite easy... Dungeon magazine. If you read the first 50-60 issues, during the 1st Edition/2nd Edition days, the creativity and imaginative settings and characters in the adventures is extraordinary. Granted, there was some more tactical dungeon crawls here and there, but it seemed that there was more of an effort to make adventures that transcended the rules.
Then 3rd edition came along, and it all became about the monster stats. "Ooo, let's make the bad guy a cleric/wizard/rogue... with the half-fiend template!" That passed for creativity in 3rd edition days for a long time...
When Paizo took over Dungeon and started their Adventure paths, the story quality started to improve again, but it always seemed like opposition and monsters were still a "gaming" challenge, not a narrative one.
Adamantyr
Dogs in the Vineyard is pretty cool. It takes the whole challenge resolution away from just rolling dice and looking results up on tables and gets players to say what they want to happen if they roll well, and what penalties they'll take if they roll badly (iirc it doesn't actually use dice but something like cards instead for randomisation).
But that side of things won't really fly in computer games. The really cool thing about dogs is how well it guides people into staying in genre. You WILL feel like a badass lawman in the midwest. You will be making those moral and legal decisions. There are some great mechanics for helping GMs create adventures/ towns for players to go in and sort out as well.
But that side of things won't really fly in computer games. The really cool thing about dogs is how well it guides people into staying in genre. You WILL feel like a badass lawman in the midwest. You will be making those moral and legal decisions. There are some great mechanics for helping GMs create adventures/ towns for players to go in and sort out as well.
Adamantyr - I wasn't being snide, though I should probably explain my comments more. My point is that I don't consider returning to the basics with some new ideas is "de-evolution" any more than trying to hide them is "evolution." It's simply expanding the genre. And that's awesome. But labeling one as superior or "evolved" is silly. Sure, you can improve on things, but there's enough fun to be had across the entire landscape of possibilities.
@spinksville - I'm gonna have to pick myself up a copy, then. Might be a fun one to try as a one-shot.
@spinksville - I'm gonna have to pick myself up a copy, then. Might be a fun one to try as a one-shot.
>> However, Jeff Tidball makes a "modest" proposal that it may be time to ditch "strength and levels" in RPGs, and evolve in a new direction.
That marks Jeff Tidball as a heretic on my console. :)
Now most joking aside, Zelda was a fun game where there was no visible character level or strength, but there was notable character progression through inventory and skills rather than stats that made this an RPG in my book.
RPG's must have character development in some form or another, whether you call it strength, attack, or power the character needs to get better at it as the game progresses, and it needs to do so in a fun way.
By and large to me, stats just rock!
That marks Jeff Tidball as a heretic on my console. :)
Now most joking aside, Zelda was a fun game where there was no visible character level or strength, but there was notable character progression through inventory and skills rather than stats that made this an RPG in my book.
RPG's must have character development in some form or another, whether you call it strength, attack, or power the character needs to get better at it as the game progresses, and it needs to do so in a fun way.
By and large to me, stats just rock!
I read that earlier in the day I think, his article is really weak as if he just found dogs in the vineyard. I didnt particuarly like DitVY.
I assume next week he will discover fudge and expound its awesomeness over ODnD's negative AC or something.
I assume next week he will discover fudge and expound its awesomeness over ODnD's negative AC or something.
Stats do rock - but only for a certain clientele.
And it's one of the reasons we only have a few "real" CRPGs appearing in these times and most of them probably coming from Japan where conservatism is even more obvious.
It's not 1998 any longer and the times of Baldur's Gate are over - even at Bioware, who should know best.
The western world has already moved to hybrids of action and adventure with some stats thrown in (F3 = best example), mostly invisible to the player - not only in the interface-sense.
The will to maximize the potential audience is the reason for that of course and I expect "classic" (a nice term to justify "stagnation", BTW) CRPGs in the western world coming only from the indies. But even there action and accessibility is a growing tendency as can be seen by the íncreasingly professional interfaces and real-time engines.
And it's one of the reasons we only have a few "real" CRPGs appearing in these times and most of them probably coming from Japan where conservatism is even more obvious.
It's not 1998 any longer and the times of Baldur's Gate are over - even at Bioware, who should know best.
The western world has already moved to hybrids of action and adventure with some stats thrown in (F3 = best example), mostly invisible to the player - not only in the interface-sense.
The will to maximize the potential audience is the reason for that of course and I expect "classic" (a nice term to justify "stagnation", BTW) CRPGs in the western world coming only from the indies. But even there action and accessibility is a growing tendency as can be seen by the íncreasingly professional interfaces and real-time engines.
# posted by 
: August 06, 2009 9:16 PM
: August 06, 2009 9:16 PM
It's not 1998 any longer and the times of Baldur's Gate are over.
So what happened to those of us who bought, and loved, Baldur's Gate? We haven't all died off in 11 years, have we? Wouldn't we buy another Baldur's Gate, if one were released?
As you say, all of the mainstream games seem to be shooters, with some RPG elements (which many people are doing their best to eliminate). Hey, I bought Wasteland, I bought Fallout, I bought Fallout 2 - and I loved them all. I would have gladly bought another game in the series, but I wasn't looking for an action game.
I have nothing against shooters, if that's what some people want to play. But I don't. Are these people thinking that the only reason we didn't all play shooters years ago is because the technology wasn't there?
Well, maybe that's true, I don't know. Maybe if I'd grown up with shooters - or with computers at all - that's all I'd want to play. But although I'm not a fan of hard-core war-games, I do like to think, occasionally, rather than just react.
So what happened to those of us who bought, and loved, Baldur's Gate? We haven't all died off in 11 years, have we? Wouldn't we buy another Baldur's Gate, if one were released?
As you say, all of the mainstream games seem to be shooters, with some RPG elements (which many people are doing their best to eliminate). Hey, I bought Wasteland, I bought Fallout, I bought Fallout 2 - and I loved them all. I would have gladly bought another game in the series, but I wasn't looking for an action game.
I have nothing against shooters, if that's what some people want to play. But I don't. Are these people thinking that the only reason we didn't all play shooters years ago is because the technology wasn't there?
Well, maybe that's true, I don't know. Maybe if I'd grown up with shooters - or with computers at all - that's all I'd want to play. But although I'm not a fan of hard-core war-games, I do like to think, occasionally, rather than just react.
I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you when it comes to your basic argument (that RPGs should retain at least a few actual RPG elements), but I can't resist commenting on the wonderful little absurdist poem you for some reason decided it would be appropriate to squeeze into the text:
A well-done FPS with an open-ended world that puts Bioshock to shame
Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't exactly rhyme and the meter is a bit loose for my taste, I feel that the (post)modernist tendency towards surrealism goes a bit too far here. Fallout 3 having "well-done" shooter mechanics? Well, at least there's nothing wrong with your imagination... ;)
A well-done FPS with an open-ended world that puts Bioshock to shame
Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't exactly rhyme and the meter is a bit loose for my taste, I feel that the (post)modernist tendency towards surrealism goes a bit too far here. Fallout 3 having "well-done" shooter mechanics? Well, at least there's nothing wrong with your imagination... ;)
I would gladly buy another balders gate. NWN was fun at first, but failed to have the lasting value of its predecessors. I think the Broken Hourglass is still in development which will offer somewhat of an indie version of Balders Gate, I'm personally looking forward to this.
Age of Decadance is somewhat based on classic fallout gameplay, another title that has me very excited, as fallout 1 and 2 are every bit as good as Balders Gate.
I would personally prefer a turn based RPG over an action shooter, but I will buy almost any game genre if it is quality!!! Quality is very important for my dollar. :)
Age of Decadance is somewhat based on classic fallout gameplay, another title that has me very excited, as fallout 1 and 2 are every bit as good as Balders Gate.
I would personally prefer a turn based RPG over an action shooter, but I will buy almost any game genre if it is quality!!! Quality is very important for my dollar. :)
"...if you pulled the stats & levels out of Fallout 3, you'd have... a first-person shooter. Not an RPG."
Perhaps. But would the game experience really change? For one thing, who says stats and levels make a RPG? And does reducing/hiding values change the type of game?
What exactly makes a role playing game? I say it's primarily role playing. Everything else, the rules and numbers, only serve to define a framework where role playing can take place. It's not necessarily about being some sort of D&D clone, with stats, hit points, dice rolling, levels, experience points, loot, and... all the rest. There are many RPGs out there that successfully do away with much of that stuff and still manage to be considered RPGs. For example, neither Cyberpunk 2020 nor Ultima Online use levels. Cyberpunk also doesn't really use hit points in the traditional manner. And UO doesn't use XP (not visibly anyway). Amber doesn't use dice.
So, with that said, let me point something out. Yeah, it's a little "outside the box" so try to keep an open mind here. =)
FPS games are essentially RPGs -- extremely simply RPGs, but RPGs nonetheless.:
* The player certainly takes on a role, whether it's Gordon Freeman, Nomad, Jack Carver, Matthew Kane, Marty, Francis, etc. or just a nameless assassin.
* There are "stats", including but not limited to health, armor, and ammo values.
* There is a rules system (albeit hidden from the player) that determines results of interactions (e.g. combat) between characters and the environment.
* There is at least some sort of simple progression, via weapon or armor upgrades.
If you can accept that premise, then you can easily begin to see the progression of visible RPG elements within first person games, from simple to more complex. For example:
* Quake II has health, armor, ammo, and gear upgrades.
* Hexen II adds power (mana), inventory (special items), and experience/leveling.
* Deus Ex adds skills, and special abilities ("augmentations").
* Morrowind adds physical attributes, spells, and inventory weight. Oh and merchants.
* Fallout 3 adds perks, fatigue (of a sort, radiation), and a specialized combat system (VATS).
So I suppose that -- for you RPG purists -- somewhere along there, a particular feature suddenly turns a game into an RPG. But what is it? Is it just the potential for better gear (like was mentioned in regard to Zelda) or does there have to be some sort of experience gain or skills or...? And if it's just gear, does the type of gear matter? I mean, if a first person game has robes, daggers, and fireballs instead of power armor and assault rifles, what kind of game is it? It's not really a "shooter"... but is it an RPG? Some food for thought... =)
Perhaps. But would the game experience really change? For one thing, who says stats and levels make a RPG? And does reducing/hiding values change the type of game?
What exactly makes a role playing game? I say it's primarily role playing. Everything else, the rules and numbers, only serve to define a framework where role playing can take place. It's not necessarily about being some sort of D&D clone, with stats, hit points, dice rolling, levels, experience points, loot, and... all the rest. There are many RPGs out there that successfully do away with much of that stuff and still manage to be considered RPGs. For example, neither Cyberpunk 2020 nor Ultima Online use levels. Cyberpunk also doesn't really use hit points in the traditional manner. And UO doesn't use XP (not visibly anyway). Amber doesn't use dice.
So, with that said, let me point something out. Yeah, it's a little "outside the box" so try to keep an open mind here. =)
FPS games are essentially RPGs -- extremely simply RPGs, but RPGs nonetheless.:
* The player certainly takes on a role, whether it's Gordon Freeman, Nomad, Jack Carver, Matthew Kane, Marty, Francis, etc. or just a nameless assassin.
* There are "stats", including but not limited to health, armor, and ammo values.
* There is a rules system (albeit hidden from the player) that determines results of interactions (e.g. combat) between characters and the environment.
* There is at least some sort of simple progression, via weapon or armor upgrades.
If you can accept that premise, then you can easily begin to see the progression of visible RPG elements within first person games, from simple to more complex. For example:
* Quake II has health, armor, ammo, and gear upgrades.
* Hexen II adds power (mana), inventory (special items), and experience/leveling.
* Deus Ex adds skills, and special abilities ("augmentations").
* Morrowind adds physical attributes, spells, and inventory weight. Oh and merchants.
* Fallout 3 adds perks, fatigue (of a sort, radiation), and a specialized combat system (VATS).
So I suppose that -- for you RPG purists -- somewhere along there, a particular feature suddenly turns a game into an RPG. But what is it? Is it just the potential for better gear (like was mentioned in regard to Zelda) or does there have to be some sort of experience gain or skills or...? And if it's just gear, does the type of gear matter? I mean, if a first person game has robes, daggers, and fireballs instead of power armor and assault rifles, what kind of game is it? It's not really a "shooter"... but is it an RPG? Some food for thought... =)
I think what you are talking about isn't changing a genre, but an admission that the labels themselves need to evolve.
For example, I don't think there ever was a real "role" playing game--you can't act out a role. Maybe that's purist, but I think it's pragmatism. Why not call these "character bulding" games instead? Then you could have action or story-driven or puzzle-driven and still know that there will be number twiddling and leveling up along the way.
Indeed, what is an action game with "RPG elements?" Or an RPG with "adventure style puzzles?" Or an adventure game with "action elements?" We've all seen those hybrid descriptions. It just seems that those are features, not intrinsic atoms of a genre. Calling a game with stats and levels a role-playing game is a misnomer from the start.
At best, the genre labels we use are confused or weak.
My random $.02. :)
For example, I don't think there ever was a real "role" playing game--you can't act out a role. Maybe that's purist, but I think it's pragmatism. Why not call these "character bulding" games instead? Then you could have action or story-driven or puzzle-driven and still know that there will be number twiddling and leveling up along the way.
Indeed, what is an action game with "RPG elements?" Or an RPG with "adventure style puzzles?" Or an adventure game with "action elements?" We've all seen those hybrid descriptions. It just seems that those are features, not intrinsic atoms of a genre. Calling a game with stats and levels a role-playing game is a misnomer from the start.
At best, the genre labels we use are confused or weak.
My random $.02. :)
@xenovore, not to nitpick ;) but CP2020 most definitely has levels. that oratory skill of 1 vs oratory of 7.. interlock is a stat+skill+n system more or less. you just have a level per skill rather than a single level for the entire PC.
we know that F3 uses a sort of GURPS like system, I think the problem is that whilst it has some impact on play the game is much more focused and oriented toward an FPS style of run and gun, making the RPG system elements all that much more unbalanced.
we know that F3 uses a sort of GURPS like system, I think the problem is that whilst it has some impact on play the game is much more focused and oriented toward an FPS style of run and gun, making the RPG system elements all that much more unbalanced.
@ Jason: "Character Building Game" or "CBG"... I like that. That perfectly describes most so-called RPGs, and can be readily applied to the whole gamut of "Games With Stats". =)
@ Stu: Since you're obviously familiar with CP2020, it should have been obvious that I was talking about character levels. But everyone loves a good nitpick, so thanks for that. =P
@ Stu: Since you're obviously familiar with CP2020, it should have been obvious that I was talking about character levels. But everyone loves a good nitpick, so thanks for that. =P
The Escapist article looks like another "ditch the statistics" argument that I see all the time on GameDev.net, the premise being that the numbers get in the way of the 'real' game, whatever that is.
In a world where most other game genres have no stats, there's absolutely no shame in having one genre that uses statistical progression as part of the gameplay, any more than it's bad to have a genre where aiming is part of the gameplay, or tapping out a rhythm is, or directing troops by clicking on a map, etc.
Doing away with the numerically based conflict resolution systems in an attempt to bring RPGs more in line with the expectations of other audiences doesn't just begin to strip away the very essence of RPGs as we know it, but contributes towards making all games converge a homogeneous middle ground of action-shooting-adventures-with-character-progression. What a boring world that would be.
Post a Comment
In a world where most other game genres have no stats, there's absolutely no shame in having one genre that uses statistical progression as part of the gameplay, any more than it's bad to have a genre where aiming is part of the gameplay, or tapping out a rhythm is, or directing troops by clicking on a map, etc.
Doing away with the numerically based conflict resolution systems in an attempt to bring RPGs more in line with the expectations of other audiences doesn't just begin to strip away the very essence of RPGs as we know it, but contributes towards making all games converge a homogeneous middle ground of action-shooting-adventures-with-character-progression. What a boring world that would be.
Links to this post:
<< Home
