Sawyer on cRPG mechanics

[Brother None]

We're going a bit peripheral again, but this has a nice spot in the turn-based versus real-time debate, the battle between immersion and pen-and-paper-simulation. J.E. Sawyer, who rumours have it has been scared to walk down dark alleys since his time as the lead on Van Buren, had the following to say in his blog:<blockquote>The fact that they are often referred to as "traditional" makes them seem like antiquated throwbacks. And though I was somewhat annoyed by an early review of Neverwinter Nights 2 that focused heavily on comparing its thick D&D mechanics to Oblivion's relatively straightforward, "player + character" systems, I can't say I was all that surprised by the outcry. I return to the idea that games like D&D, like GURPS, like Hârnmaster and Rolemaster, were born out of an apparent desire to simulate the entire world through dice, at a leisurely (if not glacial) pace. To a certain extent, they need to. Tabletop games will always be games of imaginary spaces. When someone wants to do something... anything... there needs to be some mechanical concept to cover the event or at least give direction to a GM who needs to wing it.

(...)

I would like to see viable "traditional" CRPGs and tactical combat games stay strong in 2007 and beyond, but I know that such superfans are truly in the minority these days. But as long as the player can still make meaningful choices with regards to their character and role in the story, I really can't find too many reasons to protest any given simulation mechanic as long as it is executed well.</blockquote>Link: J.E. Sawyer rpg mechanics 'n stuff on Obsidian

Spotted on RPGWatch.

 

[Wild_qwerty]

And though I was somewhat annoyed by an early review of Neverwinter Nights 2 that focused heavily on comparing its thick D&D mechanics to Oblivion's relatively straightforward, "player + character" systems, I can't say I was all that surprised by the outcry.

gaaa youre kidding me right? I have played NW2 but I used to play a lot of D&D years ago, an I cant say that it really has mechanics that are all that heavy, I mean if a group of 10 year olds can figure out the mechanics are hard can they be I think the problem i smore related to think people than think mechanics.
Besides in a computer based version of a pen and paper game you never have to roll a single die or compare the outcome to a table etc.. it's all handled internally by the engine. I can see it now..

"gee wozz that was a think game mechanic there brother, I had to click the mouse twice to fight that orc"

i just cant understand all this talk about people saying how hard some of the games are to understand the various rules when they never actaully have to know them becuase the computer does the grunt work.

Thats the beaty of a board game on a computer, the computer takes care of all the grunt work leaving the player free to play the game. Gone are the day of measuring the distance between troops on a table to see if your gun is in range, the computer does that, gone are the days of rolling a dozzen dice and adding up the total, the computer does that.

in the words of Homer J Simpson

"Me loose brain, oh owh"

 

[taxacaria]

I think Oblivion's general balance of character and player skills is probably the way that most CRPG mechanics are going to work in the future.

Maybe most mainstream cRPGs will go this way - and change from RPGs to action games.
Fallout has never been a mainstream game, and so is no need to follow the evil ways of Oblivion.
To present Oblivion with it's poor dumbed down char system and with it's weak hack&slash combat system as a shining example of balance of character and player skills is ridiculous.
Furthermore has Fallout guns and no medieval setting. Fighting with swords may generate some fun in RT for some people, but usage of guns in RT is a domain of first person shooters.

 

[Sorrow]

They really should stop calling action games "cRPGs". I don't get it, what's the point of calling an action game with stats a "cRPG" ?

 

[RPG of the year!!]

I would like to see viable "traditional" CRPGs and tactical combat games stay strong in 2007 and beyond, but I know that such superfans are truly in the minority these days.

... Because the industry refuses to put serious time and effort behind the development of quality CRPGS and tactical combat games. These days.

Go, go, self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

[taxacaria]

I don't get it, what's the point of calling an action game with stats a "cRPG" ?

Bigger audience > more sales > more bucks

 

[Sorrow]

How can changing name from FPP to cRPG attract bigger audience?

... Because the industry refuses to put serious time and effort behind the development of quality CRPGS and tactical combat games. These days.

Go, go, self-fulfilling prophecies.

So true...
It's the new industry that wants games to be easier to make, not players that require special dumbed games.

 

[wamingo]

They really should stop calling action games "cRPGs". I don't get it, what's the point of calling an action game with stats a "cRPG" ?

RPG is a bit of a loose term.
"Role playing games is a genre where participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines" (wiki)

Some would say an RPG just needs a character class system, because then you play a role (thief, warrior, mage etc).
Other's, just stats and gear grind is enough.
To me, role playing is an adventure with multiple choice quests and outcomes. Level's, gear, skills, classes, don't really need it. All you need is the choices of good and evil (though preferably not so cut out) and a feeling of your choice making a difference, and that's it.
Most prefers a combination, probably.

 

[Wild_qwerty]

A RPG is a story. The game mechanics a are the rules by which the story plays out.

 

[Sander]

...
I disagree with that, since it seems to imply that an RPG has one, set and standard story. A good RPG has a story that varies heavily depending on the character's actions.

 

[Wild_qwerty]

yes, it's a variable story

I just thought of a new term it's an "open Story" (c)

I suspose a RPG should be limmited only by your imagination, you can do anything within the given world provided its within the pyshical laws of the world. ie: the player cant flap his arms and start flying, but he could steal a plane and make the pilot fly it at gun point, or he could just buy a ticket.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

It still all depends on how much freedom the designer gives the player.

Its possible that the player character is more than capable of flying the plane on his own but for some reason the designer 'demands' that the player finds a pilot.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

...
I disagree with that, since it seems to imply that an RPG has one, set and standard story. A good RPG has a story that varies heavily depending on the character's actions.

One thing that Fallout does very well is to integrate story development and moral consequences with roleplay. The narrative seems very well rounded and natural no matter which style of play you choose, such that you never feel forced to play it in a particular style. Something like KOTOR (just to choose an extreme example) forces you to play as an almost pantomime-exaggerated character; there is virtually no moral ambiguity or subtlety (or consequence).

Also, the roleplaying in Fallout is very flexible - it is still fun to play in a fairly superficial style, and with less regard to roleplaying. PnP can take a great deal of investment in terms of time and thought, and it is possible to play Fallout with a similar amount of dedication. Equally, it can be rewarding simply to play a dumb Tank with Bloody Mess, and thereby miss out on a great deal of story.

In that respect, debating whether a game - Fallout 3 for instance - needs the depth of PnP or the immediate and less cerebral action of newer roleplaying games is missing the point. Fallout did both well.

 

[Goweigus]

In that respect, debating whether a game - Fallout 3 for instance - needs the depth of PnP or the immediate and less cerebral action of newer roleplaying games is missing the point. Fallout did both well.

I think its entirely the point as Fallout 1 and 2 are already set in stone, and Fallout 3 hasn't even been released yet. Thus it could suck, and suck really hard, so obviously we want it to be good!

 

[Bernard Bumner]

I think its entirely the point as Fallout 1 and 2 are already set in stone, and Fallout 3 hasn't even been released yet. Thus it could suck, and suck really hard, so obviously we want it to be good!

I think you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that we're expected to accept that there is a choice that needs to be made, between depth and playability. The arguments are presented that PnP mechanics necessarily complicate the game, thereby alienating more casual gamers and eliminating mass-appeal. I don't accept that this was true of Fallout; the underlying mechanics were well disguised (if you chose not to pay them much attention).

 

[Corith]

I can not help but wonder if JE's annoyance in the comparison was related to Oblivion's open ended story line system versus NWN2 "lead by the nose" ultra-linear approach (a JE hallmark).