What is a cRPG?

[Konjad]

I know it is insane question only Malkavian would ask but:
What is a cRPG?

The question asked in hundreds if not thousands cRPG forums but never truly answered. Because there is no definition of cRPG.

cRPG... computer Role-Playing Game.

c for computer - I guess doesn't need an explanation.
G for game - same as above
RP for roleplaying...

In Half-Life you roleplay the role of Gordon Freeman - a theoretical physicist working at the Black Mesa Research Facility. Yet this game is not called cRPG - it's called FPS. Why? Because "First Person Shooter" says more than enough - you play in first person and you have to shoot most of the time. But why not cRPG?

Fallout 3. Is it FPS or cRPG? Most of the time you play in first person and shoot. Why then Bethesda called it cRPG? Why some people don't agree it's a cRPG? Because there is no definition of cRPG - it can be anything then.

There is no problem like that if someone ask you if Planescape Torment or first Fallout is a cRPG. But these weren't first cRPG games. First cRPG games were simple and about fighting most of the time (with exceptions perhaps? But I'm not old enough gamer). Eye of Beholder for example was called cRPG but it was just a dungeon crawler - all about running around and killing like in Dungeon Siege.

So.. what's my point? We are a cRPG forum so we should know what we are. Dak'kon said in Planescape Torment "Strength lies in knowing oneself". Yet we don't know ourselves. Some of us consider Oblivion as cRPG and others not. "There cannot be two skies!" (another Dak'kon's quote).

That's why we need definition of cRPG. What are your thoughts about it? What is cRPG for you? I'm lost, I don't know anymore if I should consider Deus Ex or Oblivion as cRPGs or not. If someone asks me what is my favourite game's genre I don't know how to answer. If I say "cRPG" what he will think? Will he think of games like Planescape Torment, Fallout and Arcanum? Or Gothic, The Witcher and Bloodlines? Or Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect?

[Prime Junta]

"Once more round the block, driver."

IMO there isn't, and can't be, a universal, binding definition of a cRPG. Instead, cRPG-ness is a property that various artifacts have to a greater or lesser extent. If it's present strongly enough, it makes sense to talk about a game as a cRPG, although people will necessarily disagree about individual games.

I could sort games in ascending order cRPG-ness, and then draw an arbitrary line somewhere, saying "everything to the right is a cRPG." For me, this line would go between Deus Ex and Deus Ex 2: Invisible War.

Then I could look at specific characteristics or commonalities that the games to the right of my arbitrary line share to a greater extent, but the games to the left share to a lesser extent. I could then compile a tentative list of characteristics that, in a sufficiently strong combination, cause the property of "cRPG-ness" to emerge. Then, when a new game comes out, I could check to what extent it has these properties, and preliminarily assign it to some place in this queue.

If I did this exercise, I believe I would find that characteristics that engender cRPG-ness include things like:

1 Character progression, with player choice involved in the progression
2 PC/NPC interaction on a more meaningful level than "Follow me!" "Bang! You're dead!" or non-interactive monologue; ideally, this should lead to some level of emotional engagement with the NPC's.
3 PC/environment interaction on a more meaningful level than "pick up key card/open door."
4 The illusion of player choices that have a noticeable impact on the game world or story.

This doesn't mean that a game has to have all of these to qualify as a cRPG (NetHack, for example, has neither 2 nor 4, but has 1 and 3 present so strongly that it's definitely one), nor that every game that has some of them is a cRPG.

I also don't see any huge problem with not knowing exactly what a cRPG is. We don't have a precise definition for porn, either, but most people will know it when they see it.

[Dhruin]

I agree. There are a number of common elements present to some degree or another in CRPGs - on top of which, you have the intent of the developer. We see so much debate in this genre because some people can't accept the term be used in a game that doesn't exactly suit their personal taste.

[txa1265]

I also am part of the 'genres are artificial boundaries' thing, feeling that often the term cRPG is a baseball bat that 'purists' attempt to use to beat up others who don't share their vision about what is and is not a 'proper cRPG'.

I definitely also feel the 'intent' thing is true, though as mentioned it is the 'intent of the developer' rather than the 'intent of teh marketing group to broad-sell the game'

[DArtagnan]

Yeah, I agree with the two above posters.

It's as impossible a question to answer as "what is life" and what is the purpose of life.

You can look at the history of the genre, and you can see what games have been included - but even so you'll find plenty of people disagreeing with such a list.

The only problem with the lack of a clear definition, from where I'm sitting, is that there are people who think they're somehow "right" in their own personal view. Surprisingly, you'll still find countless gamers who'll claim that Diablo wasn't an RPG or that Half-Life IS an RPG. They're right, of course, but only so far as their own perception is concerned.

Indeed, genres are artificial boundaries, and especially in the case of the RPG genre, because it's a mix of so many elements that traditionally belong in other genres. These days, where real-time action is probably the most common element in all games that aren't strictly "something else" you'll find many elements in the modern CRPG that didn't belong there in the old days. But that has more to do with technology and a new audience, than it has to do with faulty definitions.

I really don't have a clear idea of what a CRPG is, I just don't. I know of games that are most definitely RPGs, but that I don't enjoy playing. This is especially strange, because the genre is my favorite.

I think Torment is one of the least entertaining CRPGs in existence, and that's because I don't recognise the "game" part as being all that great. I'm sure the story is wonderful - for those into that kind of delivery and setting - but to me story is secondary to actual gameplay. If the story is great, then naturally it can move and motivate me, but it won't do to deliver it as if I was reading a book, because I believe in appealing to the strengths of a given medium.

But I would NEVER try to claim that the game isn't a great CRPG - and if I did, it would be in jest or simply a fully subjective statement. That's what I think lots of people tend to forget - as basic as it is, and as smart as those people might otherwise be.

[polyhedron]

This is definitely the thread that would have been more appropriate for my argument. so I will attempt to rehash what I've said earlier and make it more manageable for peeps to understand.

I have some disagreements with the guys who have posted before me about genre blurring and this being the natural evolution of gaming and CRPGs in general. I'm just not sold on the concept or not convinced with adequate evidence.

here are some defining concepts that belong to the RPG genre. Those who read one of my earlier posts and disagreed can look away in horror! LOL

Qualities of an RPG:

1. Depth and Complexity. It has been an argued that any game is a Role-Playing game because you take the Role of a main character/vehicle/object. but we as rpg players expect more then that, we want details, character development, intricate statistical models, all serving towards the end of drawing us in deeper to the character/game, hence, depth.

2. Excellent dialogue, Narrative storytelling, overall Writing! most today argue the "show, don't tell" doctrine of relating stories to gamers I've yet to see this impact someone on the level that text actually does routinely at least in gaming. this section can also be difficult to gauge since some games can do part of this right while the rest sucks hard. Example: Mass Effect some decent dialogue between characters but the overall narrative/story/ and writing is mediocrity.

3. Choices and Consequences. a rather nebulous concept since it is rarely achieved. To start some simple truths of CnC. A choice is not really a choice unless there is a direct and lasting consequence that is seen eventually by the player, a hidden consequence has no meaning unless you know about it. Fake choices are the bread and butter of rpgs nowadays some are blatantly obvious(oblivion,ME) others are well implemented(The Witcher) all are an insult to your intelligence as a player.

4. Challenge. when a loss is meaningful you have gained the most from it. when you struggle and win you feel great, it is undeniable human nature. all games need this or they are not games.


Now I can see how some may look at these criteria and be dismissive as it only being statement backed with subjective opinion. however, its simply undeniable that nearly all RPG systems incorporate these qualities and by extension CRPGs attempt to do the same. Their successful implementation in addition to peoples personal opinions cause numerous arguments, but a RPG is only helped when these criteria are excellently applied. DArtagnan kind of proves my point, he can't deny the quality of writing present in Torment compared to other examples of the genre, he only wishes it was in a more accessible format.

Keep in mind no game has ever gotten everything right in regards to the tabletop formula or any other when it comes to RPGs. Its possible no game ever will. but that doesn't excuse us from standing up and declaring that this is what we find common in nearly all cRPGs and developers should include these things to the best of their ability if they want to make money.

Sincerely Polyhedron

[HiddenX]

members of rpgdot and rpgwatch have developed a "crpg meter":

look at

Drakensang (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=90933&postcount=61)

The Witcher (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3190)

Geneforge 4 (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1390)

Gothic 3 (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10751&postcount=1)

[Squeek]

The premise of a role-playing game goes beyond all others. While an ordinary game might provide an identity and a place for it to function, challenging players to succeed within a given set of rules, an RPG provides a role set in a seemingly authentic imaginary world, enabling players to make realistic decisions in an effort to simply do something worthwhile.

RPG requires collaboration, and in P&P games, it’s done between players on the one hand and a Game Master on the other. In single-player games expressed in software, potential for collaboration needs to exist within the game itself. A well-designed one will provide plenty of opportunity for it (viz. C&C).

Any role worth playing will be faced with conflict in order to provide opportunity for drama. So good RPGs need good writing to make them interesting, and maybe that's why this genre was inspired by incredible fantasy-adventure and science-fiction stories.

IMO, the future will see CRPG proceeding down two separate paths. The current one will continue to take advantage of state-of-the-art graphics capabilities and emphasize simulation. The other hasn't gotten underway, because no one's figured it out yet. But when they do, it will emphasize collaboration, somehow, and will undoubtedly make extensive use of the Internet.

[Dhruin]

I can agree that I find your points desirable but they are not absolute. Remember, we are discussing a definition, not a qualitative evaluation.

1. Depth and Complexity. It has been an argued that any game is a Role-Playing game because you take the Role of a main character/vehicle/object. but we as rpg players expect more then that, we want details, character development, intricate statistical models, all serving towards the end of drawing us in deeper to the character/game, hence, depth.

Noone here subscribes to the idea that every game is a roleplaying game. It was referenced as a starting point for discussion. I like depth and complexity but I don't think it's an essential part of a definition. Oblivion has far, far more statistical detail than Geneforge but does that prove it is "more RPG"?

2. Excellent dialogue, Narrative storytelling, overall Writing! most today argue the "show, don't tell" doctrine of relating stories to gamers I've yet to see this impact someone on the level that text actually does routinely at least in gaming. this section can also be difficult to gauge since some games can do part of this right while the rest sucks hard. Example: Mass Effect some decent dialogue between characters but the overall narrative/story/ and writing is mediocrity.

One of my personal major bullet-points. When I was a kid, we played quite a few very simple dungeon crawls in our D&D group - were we not playing an RPG because there was no dialogue?

3. Choices and Consequences. a rather nebulous concept since it is rarely achieved. To start some simple truths of CnC. A choice is not really a choice unless there is a direct and lasting consequence that is seen eventually by the player, a hidden consequence has no meaning unless you know about it. Fake choices are the bread and butter of rpgs nowadays some are blatantly obvious(oblivion,ME) others are well implemented(The Witcher) all are an insult to your intelligence as a player.

As above. We entered the tomb/crypt/whatever, killed everything and left. No significant choices (other than combat tactics) and no consequences (other than poor tactics = greater loss of hit points). But still an RPG, right?

4. Challenge. when a loss is meaningful you have gained the most from it. when you struggle and win you feel great, it is undeniable human nature. all games need this or they are not games.

Here, you are wrong. Not that I personally disagree but a game is not always defined by the presence of challenge. My partner automatically cheats with every game she can - essentially, she often likes to play dress-the-avatar-in-cool-clothing. Not a meaningful game for me but she enjoys it - she is still playing a "game".

Again, I personally like the attributes you listed but they don't define the genre.

[Squeek]

Any video game can provide the player with choices that lead to consequences. They can have amounts of depth and complexity and even include some good dialogue. They can all be challenging.

It's the premise that makes these games different from the others. These aren't those with greater amounts of one thing or another. These aren't those at all. These are something else completely.

The roles, the world, the narrative all need to authenticate the idea that the player is living a real life in a real place. And it needs to do it in a way where the game is responsive to the myriad of decisions the player might make, reacting with consequences to those decisions that, somehow, lead to worthwhile adventure.

[rune_74]

Ok, thats an ideal squeek. Would you call the bards tale games, might and magic games as well as the wizardry games crpg's? By what you wrote they would not be considered rpg's.

I don't think there is any reason to define an rpg into a set boundry, I also think even trying to do that and find consensus would be impossible. I personally felt that system shock 1 and 2 were crpgs(albeit action ones) The industry as whole has used the fact that there are attributes, levels, exp etc to label a game an rpg. I guess in the grand scheme of things it matters little if one person decides its an rpg and another says it is not. RPG meters are also useless when you have the person doing it with personal opinions that others may not share.

[Squeek]

Ok, thats an ideal squeek. Would you call the bards tale games, might and magic games as well as the wizardry games crpg's? By what you wrote they would not be considered rpg's.Don't forget that there were and still are limits to how RPGs can be hosted on computers. The folks who design these games have to work within those constraints. Some are good games, even if they're thin RPGs.

Remember Corwin's assessment of FO3? Good game, not as good of an RPG? That's the state CRPG has been in from the beginning, IMO. And that's fine. Designing these games can't be easy. Designing a good one is a good trick.

The future will open up for CRPG. I'm certain of it.

[DArtagnan]

DArtagnan kind of proves my point, he can't deny the quality of writing present in Torment compared to other examples of the genre, he only wishes it was in a more accessible format.

I can neither confirm or deny the objective quality of writing in Torment. I didn't say anything about it being great, I'm just responding to what the fans of the game seems to think of it. So please take care not to imagine that I've said something which I haven't.

Quality of writing is subjective, and the writing I witnessed in Torment struck me as "trying too hard" and it was way too "loose" in style, meaning it was set in a world where life and death meant very little, and as such the writing didn't really have to respect reality or any kind of plausible underpinning - but I've never gotten that far into it. My own personal taste in writing goes in a very different direction, and I much prefer stories that are based in a tighter reality, a more to-the-point articulation, and deal with things less fantastical that I can closely relate to. I don't have many games that I think are well written, but one example is BioForge - which I played when I was around 18 years old. It's one of the best written and delivered stories in terms of when it was released that I've experienced, but there's NOTHING objective about my opinion.

The point is that objective quality of writing is just as impossible to guage - and beyond that, HAVING objective quality of writing is NOT objectively necessary for a good CRPG. I've played excellent RPGs with "average" writing - and in fact, most CRPGs HAVE subpar writing in my opinion.

Essentially, I don't agree with you at all.

[Konjad]

and in fact, most CRPGs HAVE subpar writing in my opinion.
I have to agree. Although writing seems important in cRPGs, most of them have it bad or mediocre. I could only mention few cRPGs with good writing. Did Baldur's Gate or Arcanum have good writing? It wasn't bad but it is far from great.

I have to disagree with those who think C&C isn't strong point of cRPGs. While many games have it implemented not so good it still IS in them. I mean - you had some choices and consequences in Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, The Witcher, Gothic... even in Jade Empire. There weren't consequences that change huge part of the game but you could still choose and have some consequences. I think it is the thing that makes cRPG if implemented with dialogue trees.

Yes, dialogue trees. It is most important thing that makes cRPG (with C&C). Every cRPG had them but it's rarely seen in other kind of games. While writing in other genres can be good you don't see dialogue trees in FPS or RTS.

Remember that quality of something doesn't change the genre - cRPG can have horrible dialogues, story, C&C... but it still is cRPG.

That's what I think after giving it some thought - cRPG = dialogue trees + C&C.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with role-playing games because I roleplay role of James Sunderland in Silent Hill 2 and this game certainly is not cRPG.

[JDR13]

Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing. It only gets better as it goes, and it's very much like a book, you don't get much out of reading a single chapter.

Having said that, I thought Torment was good, but not the "classic" that many people make it out to be. I'd rather play BG or Icewind Dale any day.

[DArtagnan]

Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing. It only gets better as it goes, and it's very much like a book, you don't get much out of reading a single chapter.

Having said that, I thought Torment was good, but not the "classic" that many people make it out to be. I'd rather play BG or Icewind Dale any day.

That's why I specifically said "the writing I witnessed in Torment struck me", and detailed my reaction.

Whether or not it changes, I can't say - but I'll decide that for myself if I ever play it.

[JDR13]

That's why I specifically said "the writing I witnessed in Torment struck me", and detailed my reaction.

Whether or not it changes, I can't say - but I'll decide that for myself if I ever play it.


Judging by your reaction, I can only assume you erroneously thought my post was directed specifically at you... which it wasn't.

[wolfing]

To me, you can't see what cRPG is by expanding each letter. cRPG is not a computer Role Playing Game. cRPG is cRPG, simply because what constitutes an RPG just can't be transferred to the computer. No matter how good a cRPG is, I bet you can't just decide to ask the bartender if he's seen any albino orcs recently (unless the game is about finding albino orcs of course).
We can only define cRPG as what it has been historically, basically, emulating the combat mechanics from real RPGs in a computer. Stats, skills, spells, character progression, that's about it. You can have a combat-less RPG, but you can't have a combat-less cRPG (it would be an adventure game).
So, for me to consider a game a cRPG it only needs to have stats, skills, spells, character advancement, and it would need to be the *focus* of the game. I.e. a shooter with some stats is not really a cRPG (like Bioshock, and even Mass Effect is dangerously borderline). Things like player decisions, a good story, alternate endings, etc. make a cRPG a good or great cRPG, but they're not requirements (how many player decisions did Wizardry 1 have, or what was the story?)

[DArtagnan]

Judging by your reaction, I can only assume you erroneously thought my post was directed specifically at you... which it wasn't.

You mean I'm not what you meant by: "Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing."

It's not like I'm the only one in the thread who specifically said I didn't get very far in Planescape and then commented on the writing.

No, of course not, you were talking in general.

Right, JDR :)

[rune_74]

Heh a little of topic, but you said how many games can you ask the bartender about an albino orc? Well just off the top of my head, any rpg that has text based entry. Doesn't mean you will get a useful answer but you can still ask;)

[JDR13]

No, of course not, you were talking in general.

Right, JDR :)


Er....I was actually. If you want to insist on making something of it, which many of us have grown accustomed to by now, then suit yourself. :)

[DArtagnan]

Er....I was actually. If you want to insist on making something of it, which many of us have grown accustomed to by now, then suit yourself. :)

I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I doubt you could say anything that I would want to "make something" out of :)

But you could always just stay honest, and you won't have to grow accustomed to things like this.

[JDR13]

I'm just pointing out the obvious.

And I was just stating a fact. :)


I doubt you could say anything that I would want to "make something" out of.

Huh? Is this really DArtagnan talking right now? Doesn't sound like the one I know. ;)

[DArtagnan]

Huh? Is this really DArtagnan talking right now. ;)

Yup, just little me ;)

[polyhedron]

Cool responses guys, whatever furthers the development of the idea can only be fun to read at least for me.

excuse the lateness of my reply I've been very busy.


@Dhruin:

okay as per definitions measurable quantities are found within them, Has-has not, is-is not, without quantities we aren't really defining or measuring anything are we? quantities may be "qualitatively evaluated' as you say to provide the definition.

to your counterarguments of my points, some illumination maybe:

1.Depth and Complexity isn't just about character stats. it applies to character interaction, world interaction/detail, It is also not about the amount of statistics you as a player may see while playing. For a Tabletop example: this is how much your dm knows about what is happening in the game(world, rules, etc.) and perhaps his real life knowledge in addition to your knowledge of the game. the normal interactions you have, create the depth of the gameworld that is enjoyable to you both. As for CRPGs the two you mentioned have almost similar amounts of depth and complexity(manipulation of objects, stats, etc.) the other areas are very different though.

2.Dialogue is not the only part of the narrative. DnD is awesome. You were creating the story through your actions. one that you could tell me about most likely(I would enjoy hearing it too.). CRPGs have drawbacks and require decent exposition because the level of communication occurring between humans is at a much higher level then any current technological advance. In addition each of your characters had their own personal motivations and group motivations, as well as the DM motivation to kill you LOL. All of these combined create one hell of a fantasy narrative even if you never said anything to each other, which would have been cool looking.

3. This is kind of DM dependent remember. Also you choose to enter the tomb. you could have fallen on your sword or attacked party members or quit or went to the bar and had a drink. CnC in table top is always dependent on the player's and the DM. Naturally CRPGs are limited by the technology, resources(as someone has said), and writing. CRPGs in order to be a RPG require good choices and consequences and they have only become more evolved from the 80s to the 90s. The recent era is problematic for a myriad of reasons that are often obfuscated in nearly any discussion irregardless of the Taste, Opinion, and Intelligence of the participants.

4. Here is where you are kind of right. A tabletop game doesn't need any real challenge since it mostly an artificial agreement between the players and the dm. CRPGs are striving to emulate tabletop games. However all console, computer, etc. games have some form of challenge weak or strong. Just because you cheat it doesn't remove any challenge from the intended game it just changes the game to suits someones personal taste. CRPGs are and have been characterized by their challenge that the player is eventually allowed to overcome through his effort.

In short, you rock! Take my +1 Mace of Disruption for your future adventures.

@DArtagnan:

First off, sorry for putting words into your mouth I read too deeply into what you said. I thought you meant you would have preferred torments exposition in a more visibly expressive medium.

Secondly, my response: Writing is Subjective, Its quality is not. Or do you disagree with Pulitzer prizes or any other award for excellence. Video game writing in particular is just as varied in style as any writing you would find getting an award. Video game writing also includes the environment/atmosphere or any particular part of the game that can be considered characterization of the story. CRPG in particular attempt to define themselves through excellent application of the written word to a visually interactive format, just because they fail often doesn't mean the categories quality is subjective to the user. plot-holes, inconsistency/incoherency, poor character archetypes are characteristic of poor quality writing and poor quality games. One must recognize that there are universally bad components that can transcend whatever medium your writing for and degrade the quality of the work.

I will play BioForge since you recommend it as I have seen it around and was curious.

Its cool to disagree wholly or not. I enjoy a civil argument that furthers or refines the interpretations of the participants and hope all of you feel the same.

@Wolfing: one can see the addition of good story,choices, etc. as an evolution to the ideal of the Tabletop RPG which is essentially what a CRPG goes for.


sincerely
polyhedron

[DArtagnan]

First off, sorry for putting words into your mouth I read too deeply into what you said. I thought you meant you would have preferred torments exposition in a more visibly expressive medium.

No worries. It's true that I think Torment would have been a better experience, for me, if I didn't have to read the entire game - but I didn't speak as to the objective quality of the writing.

I just like to be understood, because otherwise it's impossible to have a good debate at length.

Secondly, my response: Writing is Subjective, Its quality is not. Or do you disagree with Pulitzer prizes or any other award for excellence.

I don't have a problem with awarding people for their work. If a group of people, whether they're an institution or not, consider a particular work worthy of a prize - then I think it's quite fine to show appreciation through an award.

What I don't agree with, is that such an award represents objective quality - be it an Oscar, a Pulitzer, an Emmy, or whatever else. It simply means that a group of people liked the work more than other works at that particular time.

Just like I don't think "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" were worthy of the Oscars they got. Other people DID think they were, so that's ok with me. It's just a difference of opinion, that's all.

CRPG in particular attempt to define themselves through excellent application of the written word to a visually interactive format, just because they fail often doesn't mean the categories quality is subjective to the user.

I'm not sure I can make much sense of that, but I must disagree once again. The quality of any given category is indeed subjective to the player in question. If he likes it, it's good - if he doesn't it's bad. But there's nothing objective about that.

One must recognize that there are universally bad components that can transcend whatever medium your writing for and degrade the quality of the work.

Not really. There are components that apparently no one enjoys, so maybe that can be close to an objective lack of quality. But if one person, somewhere, enjoys it - it's not universally bad, now is it.

I will play BioForge since you recommend it as I have seen it around and was curious.

Please keep in mind that it's ancient in terms of aesthetics :)

Try to imagine that you're back in 1995 when playing.

Its cool to disagree wholly or not. I enjoy a civil argument that furthers or refines the interpretations of the participants and hope all of you feel the same.

Naturally.

I very much enjoy people who can state their opinion without becoming emotional, and you seem very civil and pleasant.

[RivianWitch]

Yet even the acronym "CRPG" itself is a bit of a misnomer, since according to some definitions it stands for "Console Role Playing Game", according to others as Classic(al) Role Playing Game", and others again as "Computer Role Playing game"
Ah, there's even one that would have it be "Character Role Playing Game " :roll:

As for the exact qualities it needs to qualify for the name, debates will continue to rage all over the Internet...

Carry on.... :)

[txa1265]

You mean I'm not what you meant by: "Anyone who hasn't played very far into Planescape shouldn't be judging the writing."

It's not like I'm the only one in the thread who specifically said I didn't get very far in Planescape and then commented on the writing.

No, of course not, you were talking in general.

Right, JDR :)

Remember that thing where you said you were the rational one and everyone else had emotional over-reactions ... ;)

But seriously, over several threads there are more than a few who have said basically "I tried PST a couple of times, got maybe an hour in and was bored silly and don't see the big deal about the writing". In other words, it isn't just you. When I read JDR's post I saw it as a general statement as well.

[DArtagnan]

Remember that thing where you said you were the rational one and everyone else had emotional over-reactions ... ;)

But seriously, over several threads there are more than a few who have said basically "I tried PST a couple of times, got maybe an hour in and was bored silly and don't see the big deal about the writing". In other words, it isn't just you. When I read JDR's post I saw it as a general statement as well.

Is it really so hard to believe I don't get emotional on forums? I guess it is. Ok, if you insist, let's say I was being emotional without registering the emotion :)

In any case, I believe I've said what I wanted to say about this.

---

One day I'll force myself to get through PST, and I'll see how I find the writing. If it changes to a different style - then I just might enjoy it afterall. I just doubt that it does, because very few games change writing style mid-game.

In fact, I can't think of a single game to do that.

[JDR13]

Believe it or not, I don't get emotional on forums. Ok, maybe a little bit once a month or so.


I think I understand now. ;)

[DArtagnan]

I think I understand now. ;)

I thought of this as I wrote, but then I said to myself: "The Watch is too mature for that" ;)

Anyway: :)

*edit*

By the way, that looks to be from the post I didn't post...

Silly system.

[txa1265]

Is it really so hard to believe I don't get emotional on forums? I guess it is. Ok, if you insist, let's say I was being emotional without registering the emotion :)

hehe ... I was just teasing! :)

[DArtagnan]

hehe ... I was just teasing! :)

Now I'm PISSED >:O

Then again, it's that time of the month.

[JDR13]

I thought of this as I wrote, but then I said to myself: "The Watch is too mature for that" ;)


....Nah :lol:

Too mature = boring.

[DArtagnan]

....Nah :lol:

Too mature = boring.

Well, you ARE kinda dreary :)

[wolfing]

@Wolfing: one can see the addition of good story,choices, etc. as an evolution to the ideal of the Tabletop RPG which is essentially what a CRPG goes for.



But who says "story" is "the ideal of the Tabletop RPG"? Except for one (Dragonlance), none of the campaigns I played when I played D&D (and other systems) had any 'story'. The DM just presented a world to us, there was no 'story', no master plan. We were just there, to do what we wanted, to create our own stories. There was no major villain, none of us were 'the chosen one', etc.

[Squeek]

But who says "story" is "the ideal of the Tabletop RPG"? Except for one (Dragonlance), none of the campaigns I played when I played D&D (and other systems) had any 'story'. The DM just presented a world to us, there was no 'story', no master plan. We were just there, to do what we wanted, to create our own stories. There was no major villain, none of us were 'the chosen one', etc.That's how we played it too, my friends and I, and I think you've really put your finger right on it, wolfing. My answer to that is that it depends on the DM and the universe he designed.

Consider the real world. It has a story composed of a myriad of individual stories. That's its history. That's how it's working right now. And it will always continue to work that way into the future. We just play our parts, as they say.

But imaginary worlds aren't limited that way. They can just as easily have multiple iterations of history. Their stories can exist in variety, composed of assortments of individual stories, or pieces of stories, that can be mixed and matched to make up complete individual versions.

That's how RPG works. It's done collaboratively, or that's the idea, anyway. Players take charge of roles and make decisions. DMs are in charge or worlds and make decisions of their own. Together they aim toward something worthwhile. In fantastic worlds "worthwhile" means doing something really incredible.

More than any other reason, CRPGs have always fallen somewhat short because, like all other programs, they're made in single iterations. There's only so much variety that can be packed into a product that's created and sold only once (and for only $60). That's why I think (and have often said) that the paradigm for CRPG needs to change.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

But who says "story" is "the ideal of the Tabletop RPG"? Except for one (Dragonlance), none of the campaigns I played when I played D&D (and other systems) had any 'story'. The DM just presented a world to us, there was no 'story', no master plan. We were just there, to do what we wanted, to create our own stories. There was no major villain, none of us were 'the chosen one', etc.

And that is the difference of TDE : It *has* a detailed backstory. There actually is something evolving as the - so called by fans - "Meta Plot" of Aventuria , and it developes over time, for about 20 years now. You can read every new development in the kind of monthly newspaper called "Aventurischer Bote".

And adventures for P&P groups often rely on this continent-wide development.

Myranor, on the other hand, doesn't have such a "meta plot", since it was made as a rather free-roaming world. Anyone can invent something new for Myranor, although this will only be valid for the inventors own P&P group, then.

The ongoing history of Myranor is so slow that it counts in centuries and even in millennia. (Much like in Star Wars.)

[Edit: Oh, my grammar ...]

[wolfing]

And that is the difference of TDE : It *has* a detailed backstory. There actually is something evolving as the - so called by fans - "Meta Plot" of Aventuria , and it developes over time, for about 20 years now. You can read every new development in the kind of monthly newspaper called "Aventurischer Bote".

And adventures for P&P groups often rely on this continent-wide development.


But then, is it really full RPG? Can the group decide to kill the king of whatever if it's part of the detailed backstory? It's like the one campaign I played with a 'story', Dragonlance. In one part the group saw Toede in the Inn, and one of the group decided to attack him and pulled his bow, natural 20 on the roll... restricted by script immunity the DM said something like 'he noticed you went for the bow and pulled a soldier in front of him' or something.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

In the pen & paper groups, this is possible - to kill the king (there is currently no king there, only a queen), although no-one would have the intentions to do so. Normally.

But then, this wouldn't be part of the *official* meta-plot anymore, it would only exist in the p&p groups own universe, then.

Of course, you must keep in mind that it is all up to the game master, eventually. He or she is the one deciding how he story - I mean the P&P adventure - would go within the group.

He or she could allow or block anything - in the end it's all up to the GM.

In some adventures, the "freedom grade" is much bigger than in some others. Some are kind of "railroading", requiring a certain way of solving problems, meanwhile others are more open.

And that is always up to the writer of these adventures.

And in TDE it is a bit more complicated, because a small group of editors is always developing the official time line and history of Aventuria. They are the ones who set it all.

But this doesn't mean one couldn't develop "house rules" ...

[GothicGothicness]

I think Crpg is a stupid name of a genre, I mean C as in Computer, that tells us nothing..... we already know Gothic or Diablo or Wizardry are computer games, I mean we don't call it CFPS, or CSIM, or CSTRATEGY. I think it is much better to use names like ARPG ( action RPG ) TRPG ( tactical RPG ) JRPG ( japanese RPG ) etc, much better than knowing it is a Computer game, I do not think the risk is very great that we go to the store buying the new diablo 3 box thinking we bought a tabletop RPG, or a RPG book........................

[Turjan]

I think Crpg is a stupid name of a genre, I mean C as in Computer, that tells us nothing...
It's not a genre name. The genre name is already RPG. At least that's what you see when you go to an online shop selling cRPGs. The "c" is only necessary for discussion in groups that deal with both, tabletop RPGs and cRPGs, in order to avoid confusion. As I'm often writing on forums that deal with both types of RPGs, I try to be unambiguous in this regard.

[txa1265]

I think Crpg is a stupid name of a genre, I mean C as in Computer, that tells us nothing..... we already know Gothic or Diablo or Wizardry are computer games, I mean we don't call it CFPS, or CSIM, or CSTRATEGY. I think it is much better to use names like ARPG ( action RPG ) TRPG ( tactical RPG ) JRPG ( japanese RPG ) etc, much better than knowing it is a Computer game, I do not think the risk is very great that we go to the store buying the new diablo 3 box thinking we bought a tabletop RPG, or a RPG book........................

I think cRPG provides the same context as aRPG, jRPG or sRPG (strategy-RPG)

[DArtagnan]

I think Crpg is a stupid name of a genre, I mean C as in Computer, that tells us nothing..... we already know Gothic or Diablo or Wizardry are computer games, I mean we don't call it CFPS, or CSIM, or CSTRATEGY. I think it is much better to use names like ARPG ( action RPG ) TRPG ( tactical RPG ) JRPG ( japanese RPG ) etc, much better than knowing it is a Computer game, I do not think the risk is very great that we go to the store buying the new diablo 3 box thinking we bought a tabletop RPG, or a RPG book........................

It's because of the confusion between PnP RPG, and other kinds of RPGs - like console RPGs. For some reason, some people use the same acronym for console RPGs, so that's not too helpful in terms of clarification.

But I think it's good form to use CRPG whenever there's the possibility of confusion, and I specifically refer to COMPUTER role-playing games, and I believe that's the correct way of using this acronym.

[Squeek]

If the US government had decided in 1974 to create the ultimate computer RPG, like it decided to put a man on the moon the decade before, this genre would definitely be easier for us all to understand today. It makes sense then for us to remember that businesses created these games, working within their own individual limits and financial realities.

So while it certainly makes sense to consider the kinds of CRPGs companies have created and how their designs have progressed, it would be a mistake to consider that a true measure of the potential of these games. We should keep in mind the original idea, the one these computer games emulate and interpret and try to imagine how it might be done differently and better.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I have come across I term today I didn't know.

It's the "tactical RPG" as presented here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=12758

What is an "tactical RPG" anyway ?

[txa1265]

I have come across I term today I didn't know.

It's the "tactical RPG" as presented here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=12758

What is an "tactical RPG" anyway ?

I look at it as something like 'Hammer & Sickle' - it is more of a tactical shooter (like Silent Storm) but with a RPG system placed on top of it.

I contrast that with a sRPG, or strategy RPG, where it is a turn-based strategy game with significant RPG elements.

[wolfing]

I have come across I term today I didn't know.

It's the "tactical RPG" as presented here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=12758

What is an "tactical RPG" anyway ?

Tactical RPG is usually one in which during battles you control a squad of units (units can be characters, armies, platoons, whatever) and solve them using tactics (as opposed to like... action). For example, Dungeon Siege is not tactical even though you control a group of characters as most of it is action. The older D&D games like the gold box games can be considered tactical, but the real core of tactical games usually have more things to consider other than just your 'party' or 'army' composition. They add things like elevation (higher ground gives bonuses), facing (attacking a flank or rear gives bonuses), terrain (units are better in forests, others in deserts, water, etc), weaknesses and strengths (usually rock/paper/scissors units), movement rate, etc. They're most usually turn-based games, as the sheer number of variables to consider would be almost impossible to approach in real-time.

[Squeek]

I have come across I term today I didn't know.

It's the "tactical RPG" as presented here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=12758

What is an "tactical RPG" anyway ?I look at it as something like 'Hammer & Sickle' - it is more of a tactical shooter (like Silent Storm) but with a RPG system placed on top of it.

I contrast that with a sRPG, or strategy RPG, where it is a turn-based strategy game with significant RPG elements.IMO, any RPG that doesn't put an emphasis on tactical decision-making is missing a significant RPG element.

[GothicGothicness]

I am currently developing a T-RPG, it basically means the combat focus very much on tactical decisions it is ussually turn-based, and you typically have more units at your disposal than in a party based RPG.

An S-RPG would be more like a RTS where you produce units, reasource management etc etc etc.

[RivianWitch]

I am currently developing a T-RPG, it basically means the combat focus very much on tactical decisions it is ussually turn-based, and you typically have more units at your disposal than in a party based RPG.

An S-RPG would be more like a RTS where you produce units, reasource management etc etc etc.

Sounds good, though I love S-RPG's, I must say.

In any case, good luck with your endeavour. :)

[DArtagnan]

IMO, any RPG that doesn't put an emphasis on tactical decision-making is missing a significant RPG element.

I think you just described why so many modern CRPGs don't work for us old-timers :)

[tecknomage]

"Once more round the block, driver."
(snip)

If I did this exercise, I believe I would find that characteristics that engender cRPG-ness include things like:

1 Character progression, with player choice involved in the progression
2 PC/NPC interaction on a more meaningful level than "Follow me!" "Bang! You're dead!" or non-interactive monologue; ideally, this should lead to some level of emotional engagement with the NPC's.
3 PC/environment interaction on a more meaningful level than "pick up key card/open door."
4 The illusion of player choices that have a noticeable impact on the game world or story.

This doesn't mean that a game has to have all of these to qualify as a cRPG.

This is one of those "everybody has one" questions, so here's my input.

As Prime Junta says, there is no one definition of what a cRPG is, but there is very general framework.


All RPG are based in the old Dungeon & Dragons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_%26_Dragons) rules, and I am talking the board games (which include Prime Junta's comments)
Essentially various aspects of the game are tracked by numbers or scores
The scores have an effect on the game in general and include; your Avatar's stats, weapon stats, armor stats, magic stats, social interactions, etc.
The various stats are used to calculate the effectiveness of your Avatar/weapon/armor/magic in combat and other interactions

What cRPG has done is take all the paper-and-pencil, board, and dice requirements of the Dungeon & Dragons board game rules and computerized them.

Now if you combine my list with Prime Junta's comments, and other posts in this thread, you can see that there is an overlap when you discuss the genres of Adventure, FPS, and RPG gaming. In other words, in today's computer-world the border between these game genres have become blurred.

[Relayer]

Then there is the OTHER cRPG (console RPG!!!!) which is a different animal though it didn't start out that way. Of course some refer to those as JRPGs but they're not all Japanese (or are they?)

Hmmm...