Adventure vs Abstractions and Buildfaggotry

[rusty_shackleford]

I am referring to simulation as a game mechanic, i.e. something like 'every gold piece has weight so it adds to inventory management' or 'wearing heavy armor makes your character physically walk slower so now it takes longer to walk to the next town'.

I like these.

Sure, and I don't see these things as a problem. Like anything else it's all in the execution. Were it up to me, however, I'd rather that instead of literally walking slower you accrued a more abstracted penalty to represent it. Maybe the possibility of losing a turn during battle (messes with your turn order), or an attribute penalty.

But this runs the risk into becoming specifically about 'walking slow' and I don't want it to be about that, like I said stuff like this can work just fine it just depends on the execution. I was merely putting that out there as an example of what I'm talking about when I ask for clarification regarding 'simulation'.

In non-turn based games walking slower is usually a penalty in battle tho.
e.g., in Outward you can even quickly drop your pack to be able to fight better by moving and attacking faster without it on.

[aweigh]

I like these.

Sure, and I don't see these things as a problem. Like anything else it's all in the execution. Were it up to me, however, I'd rather that instead of literally walking slower you accrued a more abstracted penalty to represent it. Maybe the possibility of losing a turn during battle (messes with your turn order), or an attribute penalty.

But this runs the risk into becoming specifically about 'walking slow' and I don't want it to be about that, like I said stuff like this can work just fine it just depends on the execution. I was merely putting that out there as an example of what I'm talking about when I ask for clarification regarding 'simulation'.

In non-turn based games walking slower is usually a penalty in battle tho.
e.g., in Outward you can even quickly drop your pack to be able to fight better by moving and attacking faster without it on.

Yeah, it can work very well if the rest of the game is built right. In Dragon's Dogma night-time is very dangerous (almost ridiculously so) and there is almost zero visibility at night so you want to cut through places carefully but also quickly, and anything that hampers movement becomes a problem. Armor in general will drastically affect almost every single action you perform and the speed of it, so it's not only a concern for trekking accross dangerous landscapes but also whether you want your character to rely on jumping and dodging or on blocking or some other form of damage mitigation. The heavier you are the more stamina you consume as well, but also the lighter and faster you are the easier it is to run into an enemy ambush. Falling into water makes you 'wet' which makes you more vulnerable to certain damage types, and also decreases movement. At night enemies set up ambushes along common roads and bridges, but due to the extremely limited visibility it makes it difficult to skirt around them. It's a constant weighing of conditions and variables in order to deal with the punitive simulationist elements.

All that said, seems like these things work best in specific kinds of "RPGs"... was gonna do more will post later.

[Emphyrio]

Wizardry is a simulation of a dungeons & dragons adventure. An electronic simulation. It's gameplay is built around a framework of mechanical abstractions such as hit points, classes, "attacks per round", the concept of an 'encounter' in general, the concept of an armor class or any derivative of such, hell... the very concept of character attributes is a magnificent example of what I'm talking about.

We need to clarify what we mean by "an RPG is a simulation" here going foward. When I make a statement about "simulationist concerns" I am specifically referring to simulation as a game mechanic, i.e. something like 'every gold piece has weight so it adds to inventory management' or 'wearing heavy armor makes your character physically walk slower so now it takes longer to walk to the next town'.

An RPG fight is a simulation accomplished via mechanical abstraction. Sorry for repeating but yeah, we need to nail down what it is we're talking about here. I believe that my statement that RPGs are built off a framework of abstracted game mechanics is as objective as can be, it's the very definition of all of the concepts which comprise an RPG.

EDIT: Also, I've said this before but I've noticed in general that storyfaggotry is closely related to left-wing inclinations. I noticed that, without fail, every single person who advocated for in some way removing or minimizing combat in RPGs was a leftard. This is not an insult at rusty, I know he isn't a leftard, just editing this in becase I know it will annoy the storyfags reading this.

Disparaging the importance of combat in RPGs is a sure-fire sign that you're talking to a leftard. Mark my words.

I can't really follow what you're saying, but the "d&d simulators" are the games I don't like. There's no need to cargo cult the paper game mechanics when computers can do it better.

And who's talking storyfaggtory? I am very much not a storyfaggot or lorefaggot. I not "disparage" combat but I want more than just combat. I read lots of stories about real-life adventurers- there is fighting but there's also a lot of other things, including logistics. A few months ago I read Henry Stanley's book about finding Livingstone and a big part of his adventure was transporting all the bolts of cloth the africans use as money (simulationist concern about the weight of money)

I like tactical combat games a lot, like Troubleshooter and Nahuelebek, but these aren't really rpgs. I also like first-person explorers like Skyrim, Prey, or original Deus Ex. The combat in those games isn't great, but there's so much other adventurey stuff to do in them that I enjoy that. I'm a lot more ok with abstractions in the tactical combat games than in the Skyrimlikes.

What I don't like are games that are kind of a middle ground between the two, and are mostly about picking the "right" builds. Pathfinder is the worst example, but also IWD2, Underrail. Sawyer tried to do the "every stat matters" thing in Pillows, but it was still a buildfag game.

Troubleshooter is very much a buildfag game, but I forgive that one because 1. constant respecs are expected and you can keep trying new things 2. the buildfagging is very easy, deep and actually fun 3. it doesn't pretend to be anything else but a combat game. 4. Metaknowledge doesn't cheapen it.

Maybe this all touches on too many interrelated but distinct concepts.

[Emphyrio]

I don't think you're ever going to get away from the "dump stat mentality" as long as you have them. Sometimes I think we might be better off without having stat/skill allocations at all. There's at least one simple-RPG that does that: You just pick what your character's positive and negative attributes are. No skill checks or fiddly allocation of points. Either you have a thing or you don't. In a situation where your character's strengths and weaknesses are relevant, the resulting options or outcome apply.

Yeah. So if I need to disarm a landmine and my guy's "disarm landmines" skill is 42 after modifications from his int and dex but he can put on his +5 dex gloves and bump that up to 47 and then he can drink an int potion... why am I having to think about all these numbers? Breaking immersion, going into an inventory screen to change my gear so that numbers will change. This all takes me out of the game world. If my guy just has a "perk: can disarm landmines", I can remember that and deal with the landmine without breaking immersion. Or Beth's Fallouts make it so that higher demo skill just makes the mines take longer to blow up. That's not realistic but it serves the purpose of making the mine feel easier to disarm for a guy who's good with bombs.

Obviously games need numbers, but I want to see them as little as possible while still being able to make informed decisions with sensible outcomes.

[rusty_shackleford]

So if I need to disarm a landmine and my guy's "disarm landmines" skill is 42 after modifications from his int and dex but he can put on his +5 dex gloves and bump that up to 47

rather hate this tbh

any game where I swap gear for a specific action, it's tedious and bad design and I hate it
same sort of design as a pair of boots providing more strength than my warrior has baseline

[Norfleet]

Obviously games need numbers

I'm not sure that part is even true. DO they actually need numbers? "Can disarm landmines" isn't a number, after all. You don't need a "landming disarming skill" as a number. If anything, it's counterproductive and tedious. Can you or can't you disarm landmines? That's what matters. Numbers are for things that have degrees. Can Disarm Landmines isn't a degree. You don't partially disarm landmines. You either disarm landmines or you don't. You don't partially pick locks. You either do, or you don't. Pretty much everything that isn't combat has a pretty much binary result. This is especially the case for anything the player doesn't actively do himself. And if the player is doing it, then you don't need a skill for it, either. There's no particularly sensible reason to have a "shooting things" or "stabbing things" skill if you're going to make the player do his own shooting and stabbing. This just ends up boiling into "you can shoot or stab things, but all your shooting and stabbing is arbitrarily nerfed until you max out the shooting and stabbing skills".

any game where I swap gear for a specific action, it's tedious and bad design and I hate it

Well, it depends on on the gear being swapped. It makes sense that you swap from a gun to a hammer if your goal is to bash things. On the other hand, why must *I* do this swapping? Just...use the hammer that is clearly in the inventory already!

But honestly, gear-of-arbitrary-stat-buffage, or really, "buffs" in general, are annoying. But for some reason this is a frequent design element: Buffs and Buildfaggotry. That's practically a game right there.

[rusty_shackleford]

Well, it depends on on the gear being swapped. It makes sense that you swap from a gun to a hammer if your goal is to bash things. On the other hand, why must *I* do this swapping? Just...use the hammer that is clearly in the inventory already!

Not referring to tools that do different things, but having to carry around a specific piece of equipment just to pass some arbitrary stat check.
Partially just a symptom of itemization where things just give you +N to attributes/skills rather than do something interesting.

[Emphyrio]

Obviously games need numbers

I'm not sure that part is even true. DO they actually need numbers? "Can disarm landmines" isn't a number, after all. You don't need a "landming disarming skill" as a number. If anything, it's counterproductive and tedious. Can you or can't you disarm landmines? That's what matters. Numbers are for things that have degrees. Can Disarm Landmines isn't a degree. You don't partially disarm landmines. You either disarm landmines or you don't. You don't partially pick locks. You either do, or you don't. Pretty much everything that isn't combat has a pretty much binary result. This is especially the case for anything the player doesn't actively do himself. And if the player is doing it, then you don't need a skill for it, either. There's no particularly sensible reason to have a "shooting things" or "stabbing things" skill if you're going to make the player do his own shooting and stabbing. This just ends up boiling into "you can shoot or stab things, but all your shooting and stabbing is arbitrarily nerfed until you max out the shooting and stabbing skills".

sure but there will be degrees in something (probably). Suppose you don't have "disarm landmine" and the landmine blows up. You could be binary fine or dead. You could also be "wounded", but how wounded? If there's only 1 degree of wounding then that's the same as having max 2 hp.

I don't necessarily need to see the numbers, so long as things behave the way I'd expect. A .50 machinegun should do more damage than a bb gun, we don't need to see the damage stat unless results don't match player's expectations, eg hitpoints in the game are high enough that a guy can survive lots of .50 bullets so you need to calculate how many times you've actually gotta shoot him.

[rusty_shackleford]

Raw numbers don't need to be provided to players and arguably worsen the experience. Reminds me of the old con messages in MUDs where you'd get varying text about how strong you think an opponent is relative to you rather than it just telling you its level. There'd also be messages for how wounded you think a character is when you inspect them rather than just showing X/Y HP, and so forth.

[Emphyrio]

Raw numbers don't need to be provided to players and arguably worsen the experience. Reminds me of the old con messages in MUDs where you'd get varying text about how strong you think an opponent is relative to you rather than it just telling you its level. There'd also be messages for how wounded you think a character is when you inspect them rather than just showing X/Y HP, and so forth.

i am sympathetic to this but hiding the numbers doesn't automatically make the game better. When outcomes don't match expectations. For example in the IE games the die rolls are hidden by default. Unless you turn them on it's hard to understand that your guy is constantly missing the little bat creature in the first room because its so-called "armor class" is so good, and he would be hitting it more often if he was a few points stronger.

[Element]

If RPGs are simulations, then what is the difference between them and immersive sims? I thought of the two as opposites. The former abstracts the world into a system with which you interact through skill or attribute checks, whilst the latter attempts to simulate some parts of the world with great complexity. For example if I'm trying to conceal myself in an RPG, I have to roll to see if I succeed. In an immersive sim, I would have to break line of sight, and make sure my character stays out of sight whilst the enemy is nearby.

[rusty_shackleford]

If RPGs are simulations, then what is the difference between them and immersive sims? I thought of the two as opposites. The former abstracts the world into a system with which you interact through skill or attribute checks, whilst the latter attempts to simulate some parts of the world with great complexity. For example if I'm trying to conceal myself in an RPG, I have to roll to see if I succeed. In an immersive sim, I would have to break line of sight, and make sure my character stays out of sight whilst the enemy is nearby.

immersive sim is a synonym for rpg

[Element]

If RPGs are simulations, then what is the difference between them and immersive sims? I thought of the two as opposites. The former abstracts the world into a system with which you interact through skill or attribute checks, whilst the latter attempts to simulate some parts of the world with great complexity. For example if I'm trying to conceal myself in an RPG, I have to roll to see if I succeed. In an immersive sim, I would have to break line of sight, and make sure my character stays out of sight whilst the enemy is nearby.

immersive sim is a synonym for rpg

Dishonored? Thief?

[Norfleet]

Raw numbers don't need to be provided to players and arguably worsen the experience. Reminds me of the old con messages in MUDs where you'd get varying text about how strong you think an opponent is relative to you rather than it just telling you its level.

And then you realized that this was a functionally useless measure of anything except how much XP you'd get for killing it, since level was pretty much an entirely arbitrary stat otherwise uncoupled from any actual stats that would impact difficulty (a mob 50 levels above you but with **** hitpoints and damage stats was simply an XP pinata while a level 1 mob with 30K HP that one-shot anyone that it hit was pretty much unkillable to all but the greatest cheesemakers).

There'd also be messages for how wounded you think a character is when you inspect them rather than just showing X/Y HP, and so forth.

Ultimately that served to obfuscate how many HP you really had, allowing you to hide some really broken character builds. As we all probably remember from those games, Con affected how many HP you got on level up...but it also affected how many HP you lost when you levelled DOWN, with hilarious consequences when there was something you could do to lose levels.

[Xenich]

I think this is solved by putting in fail mechanics that produce alternate paths which while they may come with negatives in terms of the initial failed skill check, "may" still produce fruitful outcomes which are layered by various levels of the skill. This way, ideal isn't so specific to dump stat mechanics, allowing all levels of builds to produce various negative and beneficial results depending on circumstance.

For instance, high level intelligence might produce a specific result in an encounter that ends up being negative, but an average intelligence or even sub intelligence might produce a different result in the skill check (ie the Forest Gump result of stumbling into good fortune).

This sounds like a recipe for turning metagaming into a must as you're now playing a game of threading a needle to achieve the desired outcome. At least with dumps and sinks, you knew that if you dumped a stat, you were excluding yourself from anything involving that stat, and anything you maxed out, you were gonna be seeing/doing, unless it was just a fake check that was straight up impossible.

Well, for the excessive meta gamer, I would imagine it would turn them inside out due to the fact that there is no clear indicator as to what is perfect, but that is the point though. In reality, the more depth the system has as I explained, the more likely the confrontations outcome will vary depending on different makeups of stats and the encounter.

I think layering various outcomes in skill checks might provide a little more depth of play and move away from the dump stat mentality. The game would not simply be applying traditional concepts to encounters, but figuring out solutions based on the makeup of the character.

I don't think you're ever going to get away from the "dump stat mentality" as long as you have them. Sometimes I think we might be better off without having stat/skill allocations at all. There's at least one simple-RPG that does that: You just pick what your character's positive and negative attributes are. No skill checks or fiddly allocation of points. Either you have a thing or you don't. In a situation where your character's strengths and weaknesses are relevant, the resulting options or outcome apply.

And this is where we part in our positions on game style both in what an RPG is and why it is played. What you are suggesting is that certain "attitudes" of some gamers makes the game design wrong, when I think it is the players expectations of play that is causing the issue. Meta-gaming attitude today isn't just about making sure you know the rules and picking strong combinations to play according to a style, rather it is an almost OCD like need to make sure that the best outcome is chosen. I see this all the time with people obsessing on the best build, best class, best stat focus etc... and this sort of approach leads to the very suggestion you are making which is to remove them (dumbing down the system) because someone will obsess over them.

Things become more simple, easier, until we get to the point where we have a power/health bar with simplistic arcade actions that are all the same because someone might claim a different makeup is sub par. The funny thing is, that this changes when another person finds a different approach that may be more optimal, then the crowds all move to it as the flavor of the month, denouncing all other makeups as invalid.

For me at least, if dumbing down games is the answer, I have no interest in games.

[aweigh]

any game where I swap gear for a specific action, it's tedious and bad design and I hate it

fully agreed. hate this crap too.

[aweigh]

Raw numbers don't need to be provided to players and arguably worsen the experience. Reminds me of the old con messages in MUDs where you'd get varying text about how strong you think an opponent is relative to you rather than it just telling you its level. There'd also be messages for how wounded you think a character is when you inspect them rather than just showing X/Y HP, and so forth.

Majority of game mechanics are not communicated explicitly to the player in RPGs like Wizardry and Elminage, they are blackboxed or only hinted at.

[aweigh]

immersive sim is a synonym for rpg

Now this I completely disagree with. Also, breath of the wild is the best imsim around, completely buck-broke all other imsims. It is Spector Warren's description of stims as a gameplay system to the T and does it better than any other imsim I can think of.

I don't like breath of the wild, btw. Not an attempt to shill it. I just like bringing this up because it makes imsimmers seethe.

[Metalhead33]

So, if I understand it correctly... There are two schools of thought when it comes to defining what is an RPG.

One camp (in which I, @rusty_shackleford and @Emphyrio seem to belong) defines RPGs as simulators where choices and consequences matter. A game in which your character's archery depends on the actual player's aim can still be an RPG - the point is to play a role in a story and have choices.

The other camp consists of @aweigh, who defines RPGs as numbers and dice rolls. Whether your arrow hits must be determined by a dice roll - if it depends on the player's aim, then not an RPG. The more numbers and more RNG, the more RPG it is.

Two completely different definitions.

[Norfleet]

sure but there will be degrees in something (probably). Suppose you don't have "disarm landmine" and the landmine blows up. You could be binary fine or dead. You could also be "wounded", but how wounded? If there's only 1 degree of wounding then that's the same as having max 2 hp.

Plenty games actually DO just have "dead" and "alive", so clearly, it's not a requirement to have

I don't necessarily need to see the numbers, so long as things behave the way I'd expect. A .50 machinegun should do more damage than a bb gun, we don't need to see the damage stat unless results don't match player's expectations, eg hitpoints in the game are high enough that a guy can survive lots of .50 bullets so you need to calculate how many times you've actually gotta shoot him.

Hiding the numbers is not the same as not having numbers. Hiding the numbers tends to just add an extra layer of obfuscation to separate players who understand what is going on from those that don't. Not HAVING those numbers in the first place is an entirely different thing. In a game where people are shot without there being "numbers", a guy shot with a .50 simply loses a limb and/or dies. There isn't a NUMBER in the form of "damage" or "health" that exists, let alone to hide.

Well, for the excessive meta gamer, I would imagine it would turn them inside out due to the fact that there is no clear indicator as to what is perfect, but that is the point though. In reality, the more depth the system has as I explained, the more likely the confrontations outcome will vary depending on different makeups of stats and the encounter.

More like it will make them turn the game inside out. Someone sufficiently fed up with the lack of clarity will rip out those disassembly tools and turn your game inside out to get at what you were trying to hide.

I see this all the time with people obsessing on the best build, best class, best stat focus etc... and this sort of approach leads to the very suggestion you are making which is to remove them (dumbing down the system) because someone will obsess over them.

"Leads to"? Or maybe "returns to". In the old days, we didn't have all this buildfaggotry. You had the Fighter, the Thief, the Wizard, and the Cleric.

The funny thing is, that this changes when another person finds a different approach that may be more optimal, then the crowds all move to it as the flavor of the month, denouncing all other makeups as invalid.

This is how science works, yes.

For me at least, if dumbing down games is the answer, I have no interest in games.

Is it dumbing down? Or is it simply moving the scope of play? I would argue that the games of yore were actually less dumbed down in that way. In a modern "buildfaggot" game, you're presented with a hojillion different choices. This makes you feel like you have choices. But you actually don't. The choices are ultimately fake. Because, like you said, there's ultimately an optimal meta, and while the process of figuring out what it IS might be interesting, once it is found, the gameplay itself is shallow: You fill your slots with best in slot or you GTFO. If there isn't such a thing, and you take the package you're given and use the tools you've got, now you're solving a new puzzle with every encounter instead of following a script that was written in the past.

[Xenich]

So, if I understand it correctly... There are two schools of thought when it comes to defining what is an RPG.

One camp (in which I, @rusty_shackleford and @Emphyrio seem to belong) defines RPGs as simulators where choices and consequences matter. A game in which your character's archery depends on the actual player's aim can still be an RPG - the point is to play a role in a story and have choices.

The other camp consists of @aweigh, who defines RPGs as numbers and dice rolls. Whether your arrow hits must be determined by a dice roll - if it depends on the player's aim, then not an RPG. The more numbers and more RNG, the more RPG it is.

Two completely different definitions.

I would say the latter is supported by that of its pen and paper history to which it came from. I have always viewed player direct input to be more arcade/action in its style, moving away from what the originating systems were.

[Norfleet]

One camp (in which I, @rusty_shackleford and @Emphyrio seem to belong) defines RPGs as simulators where choices and consequences matter. A game in which your character's archery depends on the actual player's aim can still be an RPG - the point is to play a role in a story and have choices.

The other camp consists of @aweigh, who defines RPGs as numbers and dice rolls. Whether your arrow hits must be determined by a dice roll - if it depends on the player's aim, then not an RPG. The more numbers and more RNG, the more RPG it is.

I would argue that you can have it both ways, but mixing the two together is an atrocity. If you have archery being handled by the player's ability to shoot things, don't ALSO throw in the extra, pointless layer of having a skill that effectively just exists to cripple what the player has already done.

[Xenich]

sure but there will be degrees in something (probably). Suppose you don't have "disarm landmine" and the landmine blows up. You could be binary fine or dead. You could also be "wounded", but how wounded? If there's only 1 degree of wounding then that's the same as having max 2 hp.

Plenty games actually DO just have "dead" and "alive", so clearly, it's not a requirement to have

I don't necessarily need to see the numbers, so long as things behave the way I'd expect. A .50 machinegun should do more damage than a bb gun, we don't need to see the damage stat unless results don't match player's expectations, eg hitpoints in the game are high enough that a guy can survive lots of .50 bullets so you need to calculate how many times you've actually gotta shoot him.

Hiding the numbers is not the same as not having numbers. Hiding the numbers tends to just add an extra layer of obfuscation to separate players who understand what is going on from those that don't. Not HAVING those numbers in the first place is an entirely different thing. In a game where people are shot without there being "numbers", a guy shot with a .50 simply loses a limb and/or dies. There isn't a NUMBER in the form of "damage" or "health" that exists, let alone to hide.

Well, for the excessive meta gamer, I would imagine it would turn them inside out due to the fact that there is no clear indicator as to what is perfect, but that is the point though. In reality, the more depth the system has as I explained, the more likely the confrontations outcome will vary depending on different makeups of stats and the encounter.

More like it will make them turn the game inside out. Someone sufficiently fed up with the lack of clarity will rip out those disassembly tools and turn your game inside out to get at what you were trying to hide.

I see this all the time with people obsessing on the best build, best class, best stat focus etc... and this sort of approach leads to the very suggestion you are making which is to remove them (dumbing down the system) because someone will obsess over them.

"Leads to"? Or maybe "returns to". In the old days, we didn't have all this buildfaggotry. You had the Fighter, the Thief, the Wizard, and the Cleric.

The funny thing is, that this changes when another person finds a different approach that may be more optimal, then the crowds all move to it as the flavor of the month, denouncing all other makeups as invalid.

This is how science works, yes.

For me at least, if dumbing down games is the answer, I have no interest in games.

Is it dumbing down? Or is it simply moving the scope of play? I would argue that the games of yore were actually less dumbed down in that way. In a modern "buildfaggot" game, you're presented with a hojillion different choices. This makes you feel like you have choices. But you actually don't. The choices are ultimately fake. Because, like you said, there's ultimately an optimal meta, and while the process of figuring out what it IS might be interesting, once it is found, the gameplay itself is shallow: You fill your slots with best in slot or you GTFO. If there isn't such a thing, and you take the package you're given and use the tools you've got, now you're solving a new puzzle with every encounter instead of following a script that was written in the past.

Not everyone enjoys what you seek though. I think I was clear in what I disliked about some of the massive systems that require extensive research just to not gimp yourself, but I am a big fan of complexity of systems providing depth, as long as they are upfront with the basics of their function, not their extensive details to min/max every aspect of play.

For instance, I prefer the later wizardry games over the early ones. It really is a preference type of thing, even for those who like the extensive spread sheet style play before you even touch the game.

[Xenich]

I like these.

Sure, and I don't see these things as a problem. Like anything else it's all in the execution. Were it up to me, however, I'd rather that instead of literally walking slower you accrued a more abstracted penalty to represent it. Maybe the possibility of losing a turn during battle (messes with your turn order), or an attribute penalty.

But this runs the risk into becoming specifically about 'walking slow' and I don't want it to be about that, like I said stuff like this can work just fine it just depends on the execution. I was merely putting that out there as an example of what I'm talking about when I ask for clarification regarding 'simulation'.

In non-turn based games walking slower is usually a penalty in battle tho.
e.g., in Outward you can even quickly drop your pack to be able to fight better by moving and attacking faster without it on.

I think an important factor is also if the player can circumvent game mechanics via player input. That is, in a strictly controlled simulation game that covers every element of play to which the player only enters strategic commands within that system is what I would call the truest form of being an RPG. The more outside influence of player action you put in that isn't controlled by the system, the more circumvention that occurs (ie using various physical manipulations and tactics through the less controlled action aspects of the game to succeed in an encounter).

Examples would be like bypassing overall design of the RPG system in Oblivion by killing with a weapon that is not even skilled up or defeating an end boss at level one in Dark souls. The action component circumvents the statistical design which would make that encounter impossible without a properly leveled character.

[Xenich]

I am referring to simulation as a game mechanic, i.e. something like 'every gold piece has weight so it adds to inventory management' or 'wearing heavy armor makes your character physically walk slower so now it takes longer to walk to the next town'.

I like these.

Yeah, personally I would like to see more of these style of games developed. I understand the point about the multi-class autism some people have, but I would love to see more generic concepts such a weight, mass, etc... as well as negatives to stats be developed into the game rather than everything being just a component of "damage".

[Emphyrio]

One camp (in which I, @rusty_shackleford and @Emphyrio seem to belong) defines RPGs as simulators where choices and consequences matter. A game in which your character's archery depends on the actual player's aim can still be an RPG - the point is to play a role in a story and have choices.

I don't really care what the definition of rpg is. The most rpg-ish games (the ones nobody would disagree are "real rpgs" like Pathfinder and Pillows) are the ones I like the least.

"Choices and consquences" is a loaded term usually associated with storyfagging and I am not a storyfag. I just want to have adventures and not get bogged down having to plan out a character build instead of doing the adventure.

[Norfleet]

I think an important factor is also if the player can circumvent game mechanics via player input. That is, in a strictly controlled simulation game that covers every element of play to which the player only enters strategic commands within that system is what I would call the truest form of being an RPG.

And yet even in the ur-examples of an RPG, players are actively encouraged to circumvent game mechanics via player input. I can engage that horde of orcs in combat by bashing them with my sword and hurling fireballs at them, making attack and damage rolls until they die, or I can come up with a creative solution wherein I drop them into a canyon or bury them in an avalanche (possibly also triggered by my use of fireballs) without having to make a single attack roll.

Examples would be like bypassing overall design of the RPG system in Oblivion by killing with a weapon that is not even skilled up or defeating an end boss at level one in Dark souls. The action component circumvents the statistical design which would make that encounter impossible without a properly leveled character.

I would argue that anytime you've made yourself a slave to game mechanics, you are no longer playing the game, the game is playing you. You say "impossible without a properly levelled character", I say "challenge accepted".

Yeah, personally I would like to see more of these style of games developed. I understand the point about the multi-class autism some people have, but I would love to see more generic concepts such a weight, mass, etc... as well as negatives to stats be developed into the game rather than everything being just a component of "damage".

Spears are a clear example of underutilized stats, yes. In nearly every game, people are conditioned to just look at the damage/DPS numbers, and spears almost never make the list, and even if they do, it's not for any of their actual spear-related properties. It didn't always have to be that way, though. I once played a game where the speariness of the spear actually matters, and while the bulk of the playerbase had largely ignored this attribute in favor of the higher-DPS of swords, I noticed it was there. So, breaking from the popularly accepted meta, I made my own guild, and ordered everyone to use spears instead, proceeding to bulldoze everyone else, leading them to whine "Spear infantry OP, plz nerf".

[Xenich]

One camp (in which I, @rusty_shackleford and @Emphyrio seem to belong) defines RPGs as simulators where choices and consequences matter. A game in which your character's archery depends on the actual player's aim can still be an RPG - the point is to play a role in a story and have choices.

I don't really care what the definition of rpg is. The most rpg-ish games (the ones nobody would disagree are "real rpgs" like Pathfinder and Pillows) are the ones I like the least.

"Choices and consquences" is a loaded term usually associated with storyfagging and I am not a storyfag. I just want to have adventures and not get bogged down having to plan out a character build instead of doing the adventure.

It is important to a point though otherwise you end up with people who have no clue what an RPG is claiming super mario is an RPG and demanding all RPGs be made to that specification. We have already seen numerous trends change over the years due to crowds who have no knowledge or history concerning the games they play all of sudden driving development perception and goals.

[Xenich]

I think an important factor is also if the player can circumvent game mechanics via player input. That is, in a strictly controlled simulation game that covers every element of play to which the player only enters strategic commands within that system is what I would call the truest form of being an RPG.

And yet even in the ur-examples of an RPG, players are actively encouraged to circumvent game mechanics via player input. I can engage that horde of orcs in combat by bashing them with my sword and hurling fireballs at them, making attack and damage rolls until they die, or I can come up with a creative solution wherein I drop them into a canyon or bury them in an avalanche (possibly also triggered by my use of fireballs) without having to make a single attack roll.

Every action you take in my example is controlled though. That is, movement speed, reach, times you can attack per round, etc... they can not be gimmicked as you are forced to make decisions within the constraints of the rule set. Action components can often result in being able to circumvent such due to limitations of syncing that play with the rule system. The only way you can win in that system is if it was intended as a means to win.

Examples would be like bypassing overall design of the RPG system in Oblivion by killing with a weapon that is not even skilled up or defeating an end boss at level one in Dark souls. The action component circumvents the statistical design which would make that encounter impossible without a properly leveled character.

I would argue that anytime you've made yourself a slave to game mechanics, you are no longer playing the game, the game is playing you. You say "impossible without a properly levelled character", I say "challenge accepted".

That makes no sense at all. A game is a contest set to rules by its very definition. The entire point of it is being constrained by rules.

Yeah, personally I would like to see more of these style of games developed. I understand the point about the multi-class autism some people have, but I would love to see more generic concepts such a weight, mass, etc... as well as negatives to stats be developed into the game rather than everything being just a component of "damage".

Spears are a clear example of underutilized stats, yes. In nearly every game, people are conditioned to just look at the damage/DPS numbers, and spears almost never make the list, and even if they do, it's not for any of their actual spear-related properties. It didn't always have to be that way, though. I once played a game where the speariness of the spear actually matters, and while the bulk of the playerbase had largely ignored this attribute in favor of the higher-DPS of swords, I noticed it was there. So, breaking from the popularly accepted meta, I made my own guild, and ordered everyone to use spears instead, proceeding to bulldoze everyone else, leading them to whine "Spear infantry OP, plz nerf".

Yes, that is what I mean and that is a component of complexity. In AD&D games I have played, there were many limitations and benefits to using them. Weight, balance, player size, etc... were taken into consideration as well as local (being in a tightly confined low ceiling entry/hall and then having to switch to an attacker in the flank would require either dexterity roll or it was denied if the space was too confined).

[Element]

So, if I understand it correctly... There are two schools of thought when it comes to defining what is an RPG.

One camp (in which I, @rusty_shackleford and @Emphyrio seem to belong) defines RPGs as simulators where choices and consequences matter. A game in which your character's archery depends on the actual player's aim can still be an RPG - the point is to play a role in a story and have choices.

The other camp consists of @aweigh, who defines RPGs as numbers and dice rolls. Whether your arrow hits must be determined by a dice roll - if it depends on the player's aim, then not an RPG. The more numbers and more RNG, the more RPG it is.

Two completely different definitions.

The former could just be a game with branching questlines, not necessarily an RPG.
An RPG has to bind you to a role. It has to have attributes, and those must dictate how you interact with the world. If the player is the one aiming the bow, then at least the archery skill should dictate how long he fumbles when nocking an arrow, how steady his aim remains with the bow drawn etc.