In response to Repiv
Repiv wrote:
Foomer wrote:
...about what the true meaning of "RPG" is.

I always thought it ment Rocket Propelled Grenade.

What about Really Pretty Girl? Brings a whole new meaning to the question, "What do you like in a RPG?"
In response to Foomer
It clearly doesn't need anything specific besides you playing a role of a certain character.

First person shooters would be an RPG aswell if the camera angle was different.
In response to DeathAwaitsU
Ah, but that "clearly" is just your opinion.
In response to Foomer
No actually it isn't. The name states what i said besides what i said about FPS. RPG = Role Playing Game, play the role of a character.
In response to DeathAwaitsU
Every game in the history of mankind fits that description.
In response to Garthor
All games are made of RPG's, but just to specify the genre people have created genres like Sports or FPS or Beat-em-up.
In response to DeathAwaitsU
No, RPG is anothre genre with a name which you stupidly took literally.
In response to DeathAwaitsU
Then why is there an "RPG" category in the games listing? Obviously someone has a different opinion than yours. Otherwise, every game would be in the RPG category.
In response to Garthor
Speaking of stupid, this stupid subthread is off topic and is hijacking someone else's thread. Stop it.
In response to Jmurph
Levelling is a convention (and a poor one at that) that is often used instead of planning out character development.

On the contrary have levels along with a strict set of requirements for picking up extra talents. The 3rd edition ADnD rules generates a large number of unique character builds that are useful and effective.

In the case of skill based systems you either end up with a bunch of jack of all trades type characters or they get segregated in to a minimal number of unique character types. Each type may play differently but variations within a type tend to all play pretty much the same. How it turns out is dictated by how you limit the system but generally you end up with much less variation in how the character builds play. If you don't limit the number of skill points a player can get then you'll inevitably get a bunch of jack of all trade type builds. The other extreme is if you limit the number of skills such that a player is only enough to get mastery in one field. In this case you end up with a lot of characters that stay specialized since usually having a mastery of a talent is much more useful than being able to do several decently. In this case you might as well have just used a flat level system. If the amount of points you allow is more lax then you just will end up with character builds that combine skills that complement each other.

The other big downside to a pure skill based system is that to increase a skill you have to train it and I have yet to see a game pull off making more than a few skills interesting to actually train. The interesting ones are generally combat related since rarely do RPGs make anything else as required or interesting to see most the game.

The best skill systems I've seen in games are like the ones Fallout and Avernum use where you still gain levels. But rather than have set increases you get a certain number of points to spend on your skills and stats. This prevents forcing the player to go through some ridiculusly boring process to properly build the character build they had in mind.

After all, why even use "levels"?

Levels are an excellent way for judging difference in character potential in a well balanced game.

For most the answer is because it's easy and what everyone else does.

Like most components of gameplay it's not what you do but how much detail you give it and how well it works with the rest of the game. I have yet to play a fun, well balanced game that had completely eliminated the level concept. Not that it can't be done but the issue is not whether or not you use levels, skills, or both but how well they've been designed to provide an interesting and fun experience.
In response to DeathAwaitsU
No actually it isn't. The name states what i said besides what i said about FPS. RPG = Role Playing Game, play the role of a character.

Well if you want to get technical a games genre is defined by their primary type of gameplay. So in a Racing Game it's assumed that the core gameplay is racing. However in a Role Playing Game the prime gameplay is assumed to be Role Playing. Role playing as a gameplay element is something rarely used in games so very few if any computer or console games should have the genre.

If of course you just mean the standardized idea of what the genre is then it's just a nebulous concept that consists of character progression, plot, and inventory management.
In response to Theodis
I'd separate Theodis' post into what you can do and how you can improve. I generally think of skills and classes as methods to determine what you can do and leveling as a method to improve. The point being that leveling has little to do with being a "jack of all trades and master of none".

Whether or not the creator wants time to be spent/wasted on character progression tends to be one of the questions. General leveling, leveling separate skills, and mixtures of the two (like many text MUDs) all take time that some feel could be spent having more fun on something else.

Another question is whether or not those who spent time leveling should be more powerful than those who don't have the time to spend. Being a lowbie in a group of highbies is often not fun. If there is player versus player combat then the lowbie will get trampled. If there isn't then you still have to manage NPC comparisons.

The usual goals are to minimize boring time sinks and replace vertical power structures (such as stat gains) with balanced horizontal ones (such as a variety of "equal" skills). However, figuring out how to actually do that takes some work so "leveling" is often seen as the easy way out.
In response to ACWraith
you expect to stay alive in real life after 8-15 arrows??? no way 1 may do it 2 definetly...


A popular town center?? if this is out of byond, go onto runescape varrock center or faldor bank thats crowded for you..


What i like about rpg's is building things.. Things that take alot of time to gather things for and things that take a while to peice together.. maybe a ship or a house.
In response to Theodis
Well, Theodis, with ideas like those, you show how levelling *can* be done better. But most game designers don't put that much thought into it. Which is exactly my point :-) OTOH, skill based systems don't necessarily have to degenerate to only 2 option (few specialized or jack of all trades), again this is a question of how much thought went into it. As you point out, most games put little thought into non-combat activitis.
In response to Repiv
Well, that is why you are "special".
In response to GokuDBZ3128
It was a joke. Sheesh. =P
In response to Crispy
I know that it was a joke, that is why I responded with one aswell. When I said he was "special" I was kidding, although, he might really be "special", who knows?
In response to GokuDBZ3128
Not a particularly good joke, if you ask me... =P
In response to Foomer
Really? I can't really disagree as I haven't seen any games that accurately handle such things. Can you point to an example that illustrates why such realism is bad? (I know complex tables slow down pen and paper games but I don't see a problem when a machine is handling it.)
In response to Jmurph
Really? I can't really disagree as I haven't seen any games that accurately handle such things. Can you point to an example that illustrates why such realism is bad? (I know complex tables slow down pen and paper games but I don't see a problem when a machine is handling it.)

Generally if something is done only for the sake of being realistic it damages or hampers the gameplay. When going for realism it's best to consider how it will effect the game and if it adds anything positive to the game. For instance requiring the player to eat/drink to survive is generally stupid and just adds an extra hassle for the player which isn't challanging or fun. However it is a good idea if it complements the gameplay for instance if you need a limiting factor on player exploration but even in this case it's best just to clump food/water as one thing unless there is reason for the difference(ie desert terrain saps more water than food). Though if you throw it in just for the sake of having it and it doesn't really provide any addition to the gameplay(ie food is found everywhere so other than a hassle it doesn't do anything) then its just bad design.

In the archery example as history shows they're generally used in groups to fire volleys of arrows and individuals weren't effective. If you have archery in a game and it completely sucks compared to everything else you just wasted your time implementing a feature that is absolutely pointless.
Page: 1 2 3 4