RPG does not equal 'numbers'

[shiftyoliver]

I guess everyone has his/her own opinions about what an RPG "is".

For me, it's the story, the world itself and how my hero can act in relation to it. Which means a good story is important, I dont want to force myself to play the game and the more options I have to choose from the better. Some might think its great that the removed the "numbers". As far as I am concerned, it just means they simplyfied everything and reduced the options I have.

 

I feel "boxed in" in a game whose greatest feature is the "immersion" provided by its "sand-box" scenario: An Elder Scrolls game is a world where I can go where I want, do what I want, when I want and nobody is able to tell me "no" or "do it this way" (exception: Flying Dragons, Inaccessible areas, Bosses that are too strong to defeat, scripted Events/Quests etc...). Skyrim might have an open world but compared to the past, my options became more or less inconsequental. "Removing the numbers" means that "something" HAS to be lost.

 

Maybe numbers really are crutches. Maybe they help me comparing my alter ego to other characters. Maybe I like getting a statistical proof that I managed to improve my hero or do something.

Maybe I just play the game because I want to see the graphics. Or the stories behind the graphics. Everyone has their own favorite way of playing an RPG.

I just think its sad when an open world RPG like the "Elder Scrolls" starts to remove things because they're deemed unnecessary. If I delete part of a world, all that remains is a hole whose presence might or might not be noticed.

 

That's nice and all, but that's like saying "I'm going to remove the blister from my arm. Unfortunately, I may start to miss the blister. I hate it when things are taken out. Just add more, even if it's not so good." Removing numbers doesn't mean that any depth is lost; it means that depth can be more immersive because numbers have been replaced with unique quests.

 

Not that I'm joining a particular side in Skyrim's case, but the fans of DA would disagree with "Removing numbers doesn't mean that any depth is lost". Bioware pissed off a lot people with "removing numbers" in DA2. I"ll have to agree that the game was considered garbage by fans. And I don't see the relevance in how removing things like character stats has any relation to things like quests. I don't see how the quests are vastly different from previous games.

 

I personally play the elder scrolls not for things like hardcore stats building but purely for the general experience, so it doesn't really bother me either way. But I can see why people would get put off by it and in my mind is a valid criticism.

[lolozori]

yea but in a real rpg you don t learn a skill that need at least years of practice by just looking a book cover. Any brainless barbarian bandit can learn magic skills in skyrim and it piss me off

[hymhym]

I do like the leveling system dont get me wrong but in skyrim you really can master many different ways to fight. You can create whatever type of character you wantI bet not a single one of us has the same character setup

 

And how was this not possible in Oblivion? Or Morrowind? None of the characters I made were "the same" - unless same means using a sword in a fight. (And in Morrowind I could be really different and use a spear. Or even a staff that was meant for clobbering people.)

 

Also, since in Skyrim, there are no impediments associated with any of the choices to be made, every character can be equally good at everything. Apart form the only restriction of being only able to specialize in one combat style,since you do not have enough perk pointavailable to do them all. And once you've made the decision you might as well go all teh way with taht choice since there are no takebacks with perk points. Several games offer a reset option to high level characters. Why not SKyrim?

 

To aggravate the issue with perks, most of the non-combat perks are useless or irrelevant (like the whole lock picking tree. - at least it is to anyone who has played FO3) Some, like smithing and enchanting, are totally broken, and pointless, unless you want play as an artificier/smith. So the only real question is whether you make a sneak killer, a tank, a blaster mage or a summoner. Dabbling in a bit of that, a bit of this leads to a gimped character. The perk system of FO3 was a lot better. Not perfect by any means, but at least it gave you some real room to customize your character.

 

Hello everyone, My name is Val and I am a min/maxer.

 

Hello Val - I'm hymhym, and I'm not a min/maxer, but I get where you're coming from. I too like to play with the numbers, see what's possible and what's not. I like to come up with curious and unusual builds. Crafting my characters background story is one of the most important things for me, and I hate it when the system doesn't offer me any way to represent it in actual gameplay.

 

I often find that, making characters is lot more fun than actually playing them, and that's something that I can't really do with Skyrim, since everyone starts from the same point (with minimal racial modifiers.) Like they kept saying in their preview materials: you are how you play. It's one approach to take, but it's not the only one. I didn't like the sound of this "improvement" back then, and I do not like it now that I have actually played the game. What I would have wanted was a return to Daggerfall style character creation. I spent hours and hours just creating all sort of weird characters in Daggerfall. The one in Morrowind was lot more limited, but still had some of the same features. Going from that to Oblivion was really painful, and now Skyrim just leaves me speechless - there's nothing left of it anymore.

 

Just because there isn't a traditional Stats screen that displays them all in a list that doesn't mean that the numbers aren't there.

 

Of course they are there - only thing I'm asking for is the option to see what they are. Like how much does my power attacks use stamina. I'd prefer numbers over those bars any day. Why can't I have them? And don't tell me modders will fix that. I know they will, if no one else will do it, I will. The point is: why is the default version so limited in everything, were have all the options gone?

 

Numbers are the best way to determine a characters various skills, after all an RPG should be about character skill, not player skill.

 

quoted for truth

 

To be completely honest I never got why there multiple stats that needed to be leveled up. You level up "Two-handed weapons" then you also have to level up STR. The one thing that I don't like, is that they got rid of the "acrobatics" skill.

 

Well, you really shouldn't have to. That's just bad game design, and Oblivion was full of it. But removing stats completely is not the same as fixing them. They have a clear and precise function. They are either your characters natural aptitudes, or their general prowess in what ever the system thinks is important enough to track. All depending on how the system is set up.

 

To fix the issues with stats, all it would have taken, was to copy the mechanics of one of those realistic leveling mods that were made for Oblivion, and everyone would have been happy. Those who do not care about stats, could have ignored them, and we, who like them, could have fiddled with them. You still would have been how you played the game, and at the same time retained the ability to weight each characters natural aptitudes. Those gifted with magic would benefit more more from practicing magical skills, while those not so talented, would fare better by focusing on other things and so on.

 

The nicest thing about the system is that you can customize it to your heart's content, and that's what I would have wanted to see more in Skyrim: Design philosophy that gives us more freedom to customize our playing experience, without having to make a mod for everything we want to change.

 

Oh and dropping acrobatics, was totally boneheaded move. Yeah, it needed some work. But instead of fixing it, and expanding it, Bethesda did the usual and axed it.

[darkblayd]

My palm didn't really hit my face til I realized mysticism was gone but pickpocketing had evolved into it's own skill.

[Pushkatu]

I kinda like numbers, but even without them I still enjoy the game. It's mostly the atmosphere that makes me an addict. Like some folks mentioned before, you might start as a mage and end up being something completly different. My first character retired at level 27 and he was a jack of all trades, even if I wanted him to be a pure mage. There are so many things to do, so many fish to catch, flowers to pick.....:psyduck: Edited November 21, 2011 by Pushkatu

[Namorax]

That's nice and all, but that's like saying "I'm going to remove the blister from my arm. Unfortunately, I may start to miss the blister. I hate it when things are taken out. Just add more, even if it's not so good." Removing numbers doesn't mean that any depth is lost; it means that depth can be more immersive because numbers have been replaced with unique quests.

 

I was more thinking along the lines of "I'm going to remove the blister from my arm. Unfortunately, I might have to remove my arm to do that." And I dont want them to add stuff that doesnt fit or is not intreesting or good. The removal of numbers for stats might or might not be a good thing. Depends on your personal opinion. I might even get used to it (grudgingly). But not only did they remove the stats, they also reduced the amount of possible equipments, the amount of equipment-slots on our hero, the old possibilities on enchanting and the means of creating our own magic spells. Instead we get things like dual-wielding, armor-crafting, riding horses and other stuff.

"Less choices and more eyecandy..." as one of my friends said it.

These are the things I'm missing in Skyrim, and what I mean when I say "they reduced the numbers". They made a hole in the world and tried to fill it with new stuff, when they could just keep it all and still have a great game.

 

Some people become confused when there are too many options for them to choose from. But at the end of the game (or just before) I like to stop, turn back and see what my character has done, what he experienced and how he choose to act. If I have dozens of way to reach the point I am currently standing at, it feels more like "my" adventure.

Reducing depth does not make a game more immersive in my opinion. And I dont remember many Unique Quests... I can change the way I kill my enemies, but other then that?

An RPG is "Quality over Quantity", but if they start to reduce Quantity without raising Quality I feel a bit cheated.

 

@shiftyoliver:

Dont know if DA play in the same League. Dragon Age 1+2 (and Mass Effect) are story driven RPGs. Elder Scrolls game are about you and your hero.

Because Shepard, the Warden and Hawke could never just turn around, leave everything and do something else just because they can or want to.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Namorax

[mutonizer]

- You play an actor in a constructed environment. Playing this actor requires the possibility of making choices, not being fast or accurate. Afterall, when you "play a role", it's make-believe so you (youself) shouldn't need to rely on your physical attributes, only on your brain (and leave the action to stunt doubles!).

- This actor needs statistical functions to interact, which is where stats come from. Good RPGers don't really need stat because they will act within the boundaries of their actor design. However, most people need stats to limit their own actor' power, otherwise they all act like all powerful and all knowing gods.

Overall these stats are a simple representation of our own reality, with what we know, how we live, how strong we are and overall, how we interact with our own environment. It's an interesting exercise to try and transcribe yourself (the real you) into statistical functions and usually, they serve to keep the game a bit realistic, within the context of the constructed environment (I recommend GURPS for this).

 

Both of these define RPG for me.

 

Skyrim comes short statistical wise and short in the choices. However, the constructed environment is insanely great. It's an action RPG (bit like Diablo), but with a better feel of freedom due to it's environment (what you call breathing nordic and I totally agree), also called "immersion" sometimes I believe. I think I love just walking around in Skyrim and dungeon dwelling more than anything else to be honest. And I love using torches :)

 

That's why I keep BG and BG2 as true® RPGs, where both choices for your actor AND statistical functions are very clearly present, all the while having a great decent constructed environment and where you (yourself), don't need to be fast or anything, just make choices.

 

No "ending" in Skyrim is also a bummer for me. A great part in any story is the actual ending, where you can reflect on what was done. Where is the closure in Skyrim? I mean, after sessions in tabletops are usually great fun, when everyone can go back on the events and laugh about them, etc.

 

Because Shepard, the Warden and Hawke could never just turn around, leave everything and do something else just because they can or want to.

Why would you, as their player, would want to? I mean, in a tabletop RPG, people can decide to NOT go on with the adventure but why would anyone ever do that, it's so boring. It's like playing monopoly but refuse to buy stuff because you can. All these are afterall games.

Edited November 21, 2011 by mutonizer

[mutonizer]

Oh and dropping acrobatics, was totally boneheaded move. Yeah, it needed some work. But instead of fixing it, and expanding it, Bethesda did the usual and axed it.

 

You guys remember when you could enter climb mode and get up pretty much any walls and stuff in Daggerfall? It sometimes seems insane to me that in today's game, with the current technology, this is not present.

[Shantih]

Numbers are the best way to determine a characters various skills, after all an RPG should be about character skill, not player skill.

 

That is not 100% true as far as RPGs or CRPGs are concerned.

 

In Pen and Paper you don't need numbers to roleplay. You don't even need paper or anything really. I'm not saying the game will be very elaborate but every kids play "let's pretend..." and that's a form of roleplaying. Consenting adults do some roleplaying as well even if these may require different settings and some accessories. Roleplaying is also used a lot in psychotherapy and in classes.

 

What we refer to under the RPG label is more restricted and adheres to certain limitations that are mostly irrelevant when dealing with a computer game.

 

There is no way for a computer game to avoid using numbers but that doesn't mean that the game has to throw these numbers in our faces.

 

Also I can't agree with the last part of your statement Jim as I'm convinced that a player's skill do matter a lot.

 

After all a player who can think out of the box and is quick can come up with great ideas that a less imaginative or less reactive player will never think about. That's what makes pen and paper roleplaying so rewarding. As long as the game master is good enough to adapt there is no limit to your imagination.

 

As far as computer games are concerned this is definitely not the case.

 

The first time I've played Skyrim was on a friend's Xbox 360 and I had the character kill a guard. My first idea was to dress up as a guard and see if I could mingle among guards without them noticing... I guess I have been spoiled by FNV but that will be something that I'll have to mod myself once the toolset is available. If it had been a pen and paper game the game master would have probably allowed my character to dress up as a guard and get near the gates but things would have become more complicated when my character would have been asked about schedules or passwords.

 

Another thing that is relatively obvious when you have a disability or when you've hurt your hands is that playing a game like Skyrim does require some skill. You have to be able to use both hands at the same time for your character to be able to move around and fight. A player who is more dextrous than others may find the lockpick minigame much easier with a low level skill than a player who is not as good with that sort of things even if this player's character has a higher lockpicking level.

 

Other games (like Dragon Age for instance) don't rely on the ability of the player to press up keys and move a mouse or gamepad sticks around but this one certainly does.

 

It would seem that some people have decided that my dislike of numbers means I dislike depth. This is not the case.

 

Really, Skyrim has as much in common with Drakan as DnD, but Skyrim is still every bit as much of an RPG as DnD because both place the emphasis squarely on personal decisions and role playing.

 

Numbers are not relevant to the definition of an RPG; it's how much the game lets you play a role that determines how much of an RPG the game is.

Therefore, Skyrim and DnD both are very much RPG's. It's games like "Trinity: soul of zil oi" or whatever the name is that we should be wary of calling RPGs. Mind, Trinity proclaimed itself an RPG, but as is typical of modern 'RPGs', there was no role playing or choice at all.

 

I agree that numbers don't equate depth, nor are they relevant.

 

Despite the quote I've posted in my previous post (Gary Gygax on the utility of dice for a DM) I think that the number approach is the result of the D&D legacy to the genre and the fact that computers can only deal with numbers (a reason why human beings are superior to computers).

 

When it comes to D&D, all the number crunching and pondering over builds may be fun but that's not what makes D&D a roleplaying game. I may be stating the obvious but it's the actual roleplaying that makes it an RPG and not the rules and numbers (otherwise any wargame or boardgame could be considered to be an RPG).

 

EDIT; I had to comment on this.

 

That's why I keep BG and BG2 as true® RPGs, where both choices for your actor AND statistical functions are very clearly present, all the while having a great decent constructed environment and where you (yourself), don't need to be fast or anything, just make choices.

 

BG and BG2 are RPGs because of the story and the choice that you have regarding the fact that your character is a Bhaalspawn. The BG series is great because it's about the inner conflict between good and evil in your character's soul. That's something that was absent from the Icewind Dale series and the reason why fans considered IWD to be inferior to BG and more hack and slash rather than story driven.

 

The numbers are just gravy and it's actually the numbers that make the game more like Diablo and its unrelenting quest for the best items not the other way around.

 

Diablo has the background necessary to become an RPG but it won't ever be one until it affords some freedom and some choices to the player because RPGs are about all freedom of choice.

 

Ignoring the Main Quest is something that I like about games made by Bethesda and FNV. There is nothing wrong with this. If you've played pen and paper RPGs you must have had a few games which got completely in unexpected directions because the game master was subtle enough not to push the players too hard or simply because the players took the initiative to explore different alleys. There is nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary if you ask me. :)

[mutonizer]

In Pen and Paper you don't need numbers to roleplay. You don't even need paper or anything really. I'm not saying the game will be very elaborate but every kids play "let's pretend..." and that's a form of roleplaying. Consenting adults do some roleplaying as well even if these may require different settings and some accessories. Roleplaying is also used a lot in psychotherapy and in classes.

 

"Good" roleplayers don't need stats because as I said earlier, they will act within the boundaries of their actor. However, a lot of people nowadays (and that's why I don't really play tabletops anymore) cannot limit themselves properly and they need statistical boundaries and even then, they just try to abuse them (the rise of the min/maxers some would say).

In CRPGs, I feel statistical boundaries are very important and sadly they tend to be replaced by player skills lately (action games, etc).

If you take a wizard in BG2 or ToEE for example, and equip him with a sword and shield and use no magic, he will get totally wasted in seconds most of the time. That makes it a RPG because your actor is limited by it's boundaries.

If you take a mage in Skyrim, with no skill whatsoever in 1hd and block or armor, you (as the player), can kill the most powerful creatures without much problems (just takes some time) if you're fast with mouse and keyboard. That makes it an action RPG (or RPG light for me), because the actor is not limited by it's own boundaries, but your own physical abilities.

 

I think the market need a bit of everything for everyone, but I'm just sad that the "action" side is more represented while the "tactical" side is almost non existent today. As long as people use the proper terms and don't mix them however, I'm ok with it.