Dear god, someone with logic and sanity.

No, it's sandbox, freeroam, playing dressup and the game generally allowing much while not interfering with the players doings with arbitrary rules or limitations.

All seriousness aside, though, I very much agree with your standards.

Absolute rubbish. You really are reaching here. You are simply twisting around a historical elements that has nothing to do with what we`re talking about in rpgs. People told each other stories at those times, they did not interact like we interact in paper rpgs. Military thinking and strategy was just that in Napoleon times- nothing else. They are completely different things in thinking and even genre.


Good points.

A real RPG involves a game-master, as only the creativity of the human mind can create a setting where you actually have unlimited options. Any computer based game will always be a simplification of role-playing as it is limited to what the designers can predict and implement.

Unless they release a SDK/creation kit so people can make mods, then its only limited to what people make.

The OP was asking what makes a "True" RPG, was he not? I stated the truth, you can dissect that information however you please and I won't hate on you for it because RPG means different things to different people. Like I said, Its 100% subjective. You have your opinion and others have theirs and there will never be an ending to this debate.

But you`re twisting the meanings around, subverting them to suit your argument.It`s disengenuous. 16th century rpgs indeed.

I`m waiting to hear you say that when a Cat plays with a kitten that`s rpgs as well!

I never made an argument, I only posted facts. You're the one trying to make an argument here, I hope you realize this. But you cannot argue against facts so your efforts will be futile in this instance.

All I said was that RPG's are built on imagination alone and in this definition I am correct. I never even stated that the current versions of RPG's are better or worse than previous one's, im not here to argue im just here to present facts so take that for what its worth.

Character development / progression, as determined by numbers and choices.

-

In a "true" RPG, everything about the character(s) should be properly defined, from their physical attributes, to their proficiency when performing various tasks. This can be displayed to the player as Attributes and Skills, or hidden under the bonnet... as long as every action they perform in the gameworld is governed by their character(s) own unique abilities. And if there are NPCs, they should react appropriately to the actions of the character(s). If a character is seen doing something bad by a group of NPCs, this should affect how the character is perceived by those NPCs in future. They shouldn't act like nothing happened, or forget once the player has left the area.

When interacting with NPCs, there should also be a sufficient amount of dialogue choices to allow for various personality types to be established (though this is perhaps less important in RPGs with set characters).

-

Things which do not determine whether a game is an RPG or not (though they may enhance the experience):

- Storyline. A game does not need a storyline to be an RPG.
- Dungeons. A game does not need dungeons to be an RPG.
- Combat. A game does not need combat to be an RPG.
- NPCs. A game does not need NPCs to be an RPG.
- An open world or lots of player freedom.
etc.

But there needs to be a narrative of some sort for the "role" to exist in the game, a simple interaction simulation (where the role exist solely in the players head) - even if based solely on stats - won't really do.
Otherwise agreed.

In the context in which you are using it, player skill is character skill.

Whether you are playing Morrowind, or Skyrim, or Baldur's Gate, something outside the character controls the character's lockpicking. The computer controlling the lockpicking does not make the character any more the character than if the player controls the lockpicking.

When you talk about a character, you are talking about a person that is entirely fictional, and everything accomplished by that character is fictional. The character and his accomplishments remain fictional regardless of player influence. Speaking of the lock in its non-fictional, game-component sense, either the computer picks the lock or the player picks the lock. The character himself never picks the lock. Speaking of the lock in its fictional sense, only the character picks the lock, regardless of who or what provides the input to make the fiction happen.

In summary, as you play the game, either your or the computer performs the real action named lockpicking (of which the character has no part). The result is that the character picks the lock with his skill. There is no "player skill" vs. "character skill", but only computer-peformed actions vs. player-performed actions.

You want a true RPG go buy some dice.

I`ve got plenty, of all kinds.

Want some?

die is sigular, dice is plural, Lord Vukodlak was correct in what he said.

Possibly.
But while in Morrowind how good I was at opening a lock was based solely on my lockpicking skill, and some attributes, in Skyrim it is based mostly on how well I can twiddle a button.

Twiddling a button = player.
Lockpick skill of 90 + luck of 50 = character.

An RPG is character driven. How well I can twiddle a button should not be a factor in how good I am at opening locks.

role playing elements, duh

Even then the players options are limited to those the mod maker thought of and made provision for when designing the mod whereas in PnP a good DM can improvise when the players do something unexpected (be it brilliant or stupid).

It wasn't better. I loved that game but it is not better than Skyrim or even oblivion. People say it is because they are sentimental about it. I personally don't think the skill system is 'dumbed down' in skyrim it is just different; Morrowind and Oblivion's skill system wasn't exactly complex after all. Skyrim's is much prettier.

Here's the thing that doesn't work especially in a system where you can only raise a skill by using it. We could extend your logic to the conclusion that Morrowind isn't an RPG either as despite the calualtions made for hitting you still had to aim at the target with a mouse. In a game that gives traditionally XP it doesn't matter if success is solely based on the skill as you can just go do something else until you can raise that skill.

Nah I got a huge bowl quite often its shared at the table when my group meets on thursday.

A rpg is a game where you roleplay...
There a many different sub-genres, like "oldschool" rpgs or "action-rpgs", etc. , they concentrate all on a different aspect and can be very different. (they all share some kind of chararcter development)






But I never heard of the term "true rpg". Is that a slang for indie games?

FFVII is a funny one.

I must confess it drew me in, in a way that was surprising for me. I couldn`t even choose my own character and I discovered no one really died unless scripted to. But you did get immersed.

I can`t call it a true rpg, it was more like a very involving story book.

Also this was at a time when I didn`t have a PC and only had a console. It was the closest thing to a pen and paper rpg I could expect to have.

A RPG (Role-playing game) means just what it sounds like: You can "play a role" that differs from yourself and actually get involved with the game and make it less of a "game"
and more of a "role" or "world involvement". How good of an RPG is, can usually be measured by how immersed you can be with the game.

Skyrim (imo) has a lot of things that break immersion, and its really hard for me to connect with my character based on the way that the game makes him build up.
There aren't really get a lot of "choices" that I can make in the game. I can't make myself stronger overall, I have to use a specific kind of weapon and get strong in that.
Then I have to buy specific perks and make him strong in that.

As for combat, when a group of enemies come up to me, I dont have to really fear dying, so running away is not a choice I can take. Combat is really simple and 1 dimensional
with no realism at all...huge immersion breaker. Swinging my sword at enemies and they never react to my hits is not immersive. Bashing people with shields being the only way to stagger them
is not immersive. Giants hitting me and making me fly into space is not immersive.

Overall though, a lot of the time in Skyrim, I have to be boxed into a decision...not really make conscious ones towards what I really want.

Because of that, as an "RPG" its pretty weak. But as an adventure/action game it definitely sits well.

Morrowind (and Daggerfall even more) accomplished a certain level of immersion, either by the weirdness of your surroundings (Morrowind was a blast to explore) or by the sheer amount of skills, options, towns that Daggerfall had. Oblivion (I haven't played Skyrim) failed, for me, in both these criteria. That doesn't mean I didn't have fun in Oblivion, it just didn't captivate me as much as II and III did.

Most RPGs have some overlapping features, but some of those features stand out. None of those are bad games because they highlight features and consider others less important. That's what defines these games and that's what allows them to attract their own market. I expect Drakensang to be stats driven, Dragen Age Origins to have memorable characters, the Witcher 2 to have a branching story line, Skyrim to have a sandbox open world, etc.

None of these games is better bad, because they miss something that the others are good at. That doesn't mean I don't want those, but it is simply not going to happen. There is only so much a developer can do before the budget runs out. So talking about what constitutes a true RPG and determining whether Skyrim is one appears academic to me and of little consequence, because I just want to have fun with the parts that the game is good at.

The climb from a sand grain to a mountain of skill, noob to God. With the added choice of being a goodie two shoes or a sadistic mass murder.