Hah, ah it's all single gold stars back then. But you have no idea what this forums been through, I've been here since 2002. I've seen it go through all sorts of rough, and this isn't anywhere near as bad. I still insist Oblivion was the worst, we weren't ready to handle such a large influx of users. Like zero response ability. Skyrim was far more civil than Oblivions release, which is saying something. Though there are rougher patches yet no doubt. Far more good than bad though. If you stick around long enough you'll know what I mean.

.

I meant the poster of that article not you. That should clear things up.

I play RPGs to enjoy different point of views on things, treat it like an alternative drama. I have a basic background, personality, mannarism for every character I made. The core fun of RPGs has always been making new characters

I don't even see Lockpicking as a mini-game... its unlocking a chest. You turn the pick and test where the lock gives... i don't see much a "game" to it, more like a task.

I feel its great that its not an automatic action your character does for you. The higher your character's lockpicking skill, the easier it is to unlock it. Yes, you can get lucky and unlock a Master or Expert with low LP skill, and that seems right to me.

No, RPG's are a specific genre of games with roots in pen-and-paper games like Dungeons and Dragons. Your interpretation makes sense, of course, but claiming that that's the only possible interpretation of the term because it's what the words literally mean doesn't really make sense.

Well, that's probably by far the wrongest thing I've ever read in this whole "what is RPG and what not" discussion.

There are a lot of factors, which can make an RPG, and it's up to the player, how important it is for him and if he wants to call the game an RPG or a game with RPG elements (which is irrelevant anyways, since it makes no statement on the actual quality).

But immersion has never been an RPG factor and is completely unimportant for most games anyways.
Immersion if for simulations.

But I see different people actually have different definitions of "immersion". So the discussion about "immersion" is just as useless as the discussion of "is it an RPG or not".



The combat is already kind of a "mini game". Or let's rather say, it's driven a lot by the skill of the player.

This is what this whole discussion and article seems to be about:
Player skill vs. player character skill (to do certain things)

The "more RPG way" is of course always the "player character skill" way ... this doesn't mean, it always has to "better".
The big problem I have with Skyrim and Oblivion is, that they are mixing "player skill" and "player character skill" up in an often not really well thought out way. I think it's generally very hard to use both concepts on one gameplay-mechanic and get it right.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to read and respond to the article. I appreciate all of the feedback.

An open invitation to everyone, though in particular to people who object to the conclusion of the article: how would you describe how you derive satisfaction from playing a role-playing game?

This is essentially where the core issue lies, I think, and why people argue over what is and is not RP. For myself, the simulation aspects are dominant (being able to immerse myself in a fictional world as a fictional character) though the statistical (game) elements are important as well (I need to be able to define my character, challenge them, and improve them over time). Narrative elements are probably the least important for me, though of course I enjoy a good story like everyone else.

For me, then, satisfaction come from a hierarchy of elements:
1. simulation
2. ruleset
3. narrative

For me, the primary goal of RPGs is to adopt a role. The rules are only necessary to the extent that they help to define that role and give my imagination focus while I'm "playing" the role. The more "realistic" (in terms of the logic of the game world) the rules are, the better the simulation and the easier it is for me to immerse myself. This probably also explains why narrative is the least important to me: most of my mental energy is directed toward the creation and maintenance of my character which is largely constructed from a private narrative. Since I have a narrative already, external narratives (provided by the game) are less important.

"Immersion", to me, is simply "losing yourself" in an activity. It is logically distinct from any of these elements, and any of these elements can lead to immersion, though people obviously find different things engaging to different degrees. Novels, television, board games, etc., are all "immersive".

Perhaps much of the conflict in RPG communities is owing to different players ranking these elements differently. I don't think it's correct to say that any one ordering is superior or "more" RPG than another but I do think that there is some advantage in understanding that different people rank these elements differently. I believe that Skyrim has been designed using essentially the same priority structure that I use, which is probably why I enjoy it more than I dislike it. I can understand how someone who ranks the ruleset or narrative higher than the simulation aspect would hate it. They've obviously put more into the graphics and sound design than the game mechanics or quests.

I guess I'm a little bit of all three. For the most part, I'm a narrative and ruleset focused player, and I tend to most enjoy games that focus on those things. However, when I play an Elder Scrolls game, I get into the simulation aspect, having my character sleep at night and eat food at meal times, even if it's not required by the game. Simulation is really the only way a game like Skyrim can be enjoyed from an RP perspective, because the other two elements are pretty threadbare.

However, when I play most games, simulation is not something I even think about. Only Bethesda games seem to bring that out in me.

I think most (if not all) RPGers are a little bit of all three. It's more a matter of how different players prioritize these elements.

Thinking more about it, I think each of these elements has to be further specified for a game to count as an RPG. For example, the simulation aspect has to not only represent the sensory elements of the world, but also the logical or manipulable elements: things not only have to look like real objects, but they have to provide the player with a broad number of ways to interact with the environment. An action game typically tries to simulate visual and physical properties, but doesn't typically try to extend the number of usable elements beyond what is strictly necessary. Typically, you have guns and health kits and maybe vehicles. RPGs typically include numerous redundant elements (elements that add to the game without being required to complete it): eg. harvestable plants and crafting materials, work stations (alchemy, smithing, enchanting, cooking), food and drink, chairs, beds, containers to store things in, books to read, 'junk' objects that can be picked up, stored in inventory, sold, etc. A game with a large number of interactive elements and poor graphics can provide a better simulation than a game with good graphics and a restricted set of items.

Every game is bound by rules, but RPG rulesets must specifically implement a means of player progression: a mechanic for improving a character's stats over time that supports alternate builds. They also typically provide the player with some way to choose from different character presets or allow the player to create a custom character. Different character builds should have different strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, they will also provide the player with party mechanics that allow the player to control one or more NPCs (or allow the player to join other players over a network).

Narrative, in turn, isn't generally a straightforward linear affair as it typically is in other games but allows the player to choose different responses leading to different results. There has to be some branching in the middle, even if the end is ultimately the same.

If we use these provisions we can say that a (generic) action game isn't an RPG even though it includes simulation, rules, and narrative because the simulation does not extend redundantly into the fictional world, the rules do not permit the formation of different character builds based on player choice, and the narrative is linear. Is it too big a stretch to say that a game that provides more types of interaction with the environment, more choices of character build, and more branches in the narrative is (all other things being equal) a better RPG than one that does each of these things less well?

That would make Skyrim a middling sort of RPG. The simulation is fairly good, the mechanics are fairly uneven (some good, some bad), and the narrative is pretty thin. People who hate the game the most are probably the people who value narrative over the other two, or people who value rules and narrative above simulation. People who value simulation highly are going to be the most satisfied overall.

What are your thoughts?

I've posted an article about relationship between simulation and roleplaying, but I was caught up with Skyrim and didn't have time to response
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1314973-immersion-a-distraction-to-rpgs/page__p__19771873#entry19771873

Simulation wise, Skyrim is rather bad. What Skyrim provides is actually the crazy free form gameplay like back in Fallout 2. Almost able to do whatever I want, however I want. RP wise, it's also bad, cause I get to be a champion of all Daedric princes. The only real "option" in this game is "Imperial or Stormcloak". Simulation is a tool to roleplay, but over the time the tool overshadowed the objective of the game, which created the "confusion" of the genre.

Anyway. There was a topic a few years ago on defining players type for RPGs. The rule lawyers, the dramatists, the powerplayers. It attempted to define the general group of people we met often around the table and how we could approach games with them.

Off topic, RPG has been since God knows when a therapy for psychiatrists to investigate and treat autism patients.

I read the article and here are my observations: when I RP, I want to adopt the thoughts of my characters. I want to be immersed and feel the sensations that my character feels (simulation) but all of my interactions with the world are defined by my character's personality. There's no conflict in this approach that pits simulation against RP--they work together seamlessly. Although I can see what my character sees and hear what they hear, I behave in a fashion that is different from the way I behave in real life. In RL I may be a rather mild-mannered and timid man; in RP I can adopt the role of a dashing, impulsive rogue. That's why the simulation is important: I want to be able to experience, as much as possible, the life of this person who is so completely different from myself. There are players who have a difficult time "getting into character" who may not be able to leave their own personality behind when role-playing, but this issue is separate from simulation: it has more to do with an inability or unwillingness to adopt a different perspective.

Incidentally, this may help to explain why some people are so hung up on rules. When I RP, if a game doesn't supply me with certain rules, I'm happy to supply my own to further define the limits of my character. I can do this because the satisfaction of adopting an alternate persona outweighs the disappointment I feel by encountering a gap in the ruleset. Others, who don't possess the same ability to immerse themselves in another role may find the gaps to be insurmountable and the experience ruined for them. For example, I hear a lot of complaints about Skyrim allowing the player to join every faction which means that their actions have no weight or consequence and every character becomes "the same". I was a little surprised when I first heard these complaints because when I RP I only make decisions that are in keeping with my character so I would never encounter this objection naturally in my own gameplay. It simply didn't occur to me until other people brought it up. Of course it's a valid complaint, but it helps to highlight the complexity of the question: What is a RPG? I didn't notice the flaw in the ruleset because I was busy playing a role in character. From my perspective, the only players who would be prone to experience this complaint as a genuine issue are players who don't naturally get immersed in their role and who are, consequently, playing as themselves instead of playing as a character. Am I a worse RP for not noticing this problem as quickly as the rule-oriented gamers did, or a better RP? It seems utterly bizarre to be accused of not really role-playing for not noticing a design issue because I was busy role-playing. Of course a game that imposes restrictions, penalties, and consequences is a better RPG than one that doesn't, but not imposing them doesn't automatically make a game not an RPG. My own experience confirms that.

In fact, it is this desire to adopt a new persona and thinking and making decisions from that perspective that prevents me from enjoying many other games. I find it hard, for example, to play many action games because they require me to adopt the role of a "meat-head", a role I find distasteful because it is typically shallow and dull. I can play them and enjoy the challenge presented by the gameplay but I can never be immersed in them the way I can be in a game which allows me to adopt the thoughts and actions of a character that I have created myself. (I think the only character I ever identified strongly with in an action game is Max Payne.) It's the same reason why I think RPGs that allow me to create my own character (ES series) are superior from a RP perspective than games that force me to adopt a character created by someone else. To me, even though I can customize the character's development over time, and I can choose alternate paths through the story, I'm prevented from exploring a role that I find intrinsically interesting. For me, Skyrim is a better RPG in this regard than Fallout:New Vegas. In NV, you are arbitrarily assigned a role as a courier. It is an indelible statement that defines your character. I can't make any kind of character I want: I have to make a character who choose to be a courier. This brings F:NV closer to the realm of an action game, even though the other elements more than make up for this shortcoming by providing more depth and choice once the role has been adopted. In Skyrim, I am free to create almost any character I like because I may have been arrested purely by accident. In F:NV I have to create a character that falls under a particular subset.

Simulation has always been incredible tool to bring awesome experience in roleplaying. Supposingly, they seamlessly coexist. Problem is, developers and player communities who never touched tabletop roleplaying and grew up with Diablo, were imposed by marketing jackbutts that action games are RPGs. Simulation, who was supposed to be a tool, had became the host, when developers completely forgot what their goal was supposed to be.

The complaints are all based on observation, on how poorly the simulation was implemented on Skyrim. Inconsistency. NPCs did not react with consistent reactions that, once you've done this thing, they should react accordingly if you try to break away from your role. Consistent roleplay can almost always apply to any genre, even in FPS, only that they do not allow you to properly proceed in the game flow because they did not consider that as an element of the game. If you roleplay a character in Borderland that doesn't kill dogs and hug them all the time, you will eventually get killed by the giant mutated monsters, but you can always avoid them in Skyrim.

Does that mean Skyrim done crap in this department? Not so much actually. When I discovered Saadia's quest line, my character decided to tell the redguards where she is, so she may gain the rewards, but when she lured Saadia out to meet Kematu alone, well as an opportunist she is, I decided it was great opportunity to kill Kematu to help Saadia. Then to my surprise the developers actually accounted for this situation and gave a proper response to my actions. This is consistency. The Daedric Princes questlines ruin roleplaying experience when you started asking, why.... am I railroaded to do all these things? Why am I even allowed? Shouldn't they consistently know that I have been working with their enemies? That means, If I play an opportunist who lick on every boots he encountered, the Daedric Princes are not smart enough to notice when they should have according to their predefined context.

Many parts of Skryim lack consistency that they should have like Saadia questline. I let it go, since Skryim is quite a huge world, and implementing all these unique dungeons with all these 3D graphics are supreme pain in the hind. I respect deeply their efforts on trying to make it the best they could. It just taste a bit weird.


Now this is a question of how much constraint is acceptable. You are a courier in FO:NV, you are a prisoner in Skyrim. Why can't I start as an apprentice mage in Winterhold and found out Dragon's return from that point on? What makes being a gangster courier more insufferable than being a prisoner (framed or not)? Planescape: Torment forced you to play as Nameless One suffering amnesia whenever he died, yet its roleplaying element is far superior than Skryim, why? It's what happens after you got railroaded. PS:T really accounts into every actions you performed, and NPCs reacted accordingly and consistently. The immersion is far superior without the need of 3D engine.

RPGs should bring this to table, no just massive mad fun. Mad fun's actually for the action game department.

Of course, we have to keep in mind when talking about older RPGs that we have no idea what the developers would have done if they'd had comparable 3d technology. You do the best with the materials available. It's not at all certain that they wouldn't have fallen for the same pitfalls that modern developers do. It's all about making a virtue of necessity.

And there is a fundamental difference between playing a courier and playing a prisoner. In the first, my character had to choose that occupation, meaning that it was in some ways a suitable choice that matched their temperament. In the latter, anybody can be made a prisoner since it's something that happens to you, not something you undertake to do. If it were up to me, I'd allow players to choose to start in different cities as apprentices in different guilds if they wanted to.

You can bet when I get started on my own mod (if they ever release the damn CK) that player choice, narrative, and RP consequences will be a big part of it. I have the luxury of focusing on those things because the 3d environments have already been more or less constructed. If nothing else, Skyrim frees modders from having to worry about those aspects so they can focus on the other elements. Another reason why mods always seem "better" to other people.

As long as there are players they will ALWAYS disagree on the the 'immersion' aspect of the game. Here's an example of my immersion breaker.

Skyrim takes place in a very cold climate.
... but the NPCs often wear ridiculously skimpy clothing and amour made just to show us big boobs or biceps.
This is ruins the immersion for me and makes me realize why and who the game is made to appeal to.
For me it's Skyrim's biggest fail.

I've read somewhere they are releasing an SDK that is going to be very similar to NWN, so I guess it is very possible your idea could be well implemented. I'd love to see the NWN hype being picked back up again.

Haha, I don't know where you live, but I live in a tropical city. When we call 10 degree celcius is chilling as hell we still have Canadians here wearing skimpy t-shirts in the wind and they said we have nice weather and we were all packed up in thick clothes like a DHL package.

The local Nords probably don't mind, they are 50% resistant to cold, after all. Besides, apart from the Northern coastline, most parts of Skyrim don't actually look all that cold.

Ahm ... most parts of Skyrim look very very cold. And even the parts without snow don't look warm enough to jump around like for example those foresworn do. It's indeed somehow strange.

They're used to it. Add a few hairs to a Nord and you've got a bear.