Ideal RPG Mechanics

Indeed it was. Those swords weren't even very sharp, because precise cutting wasn't really the main function. (And they'd ruin a fine edge in no time at all anyway since real life always calculates durability.) But still, some degree of edge was more useful than no edge at all, there's a reason they weren't hammers.

prostitution :^)

There's a Mud called Lost Souls that has some of the things you're looking for. Shame it doesn't have the rest, especially weapon utility.

...

casual

Skill based magic casting (think magicka)

Okay, so clearly you should spend all your time preparing magic because you can effectively one shot a dragon by nuking it. Typical combat would be inherently inferior since it wouldn't give you anything remotely as powerful, good balance 11/10

Wrong.
European swords were just as sharp as any other as hitting your enemy on his armor will do absolutely jack shit as you wear padding underneath the armor.

Swords were sharp and you angled for the unarmored joints/back of the leg etc. if you were in a duel, or pull out a hammer if you were in a battle, which actually generates enough angular momentum to have a chance at knocking people out through armor.

I never said that went for all swords, some swords are exactly what you said. But there were also extra big swords that were just as much for smashing armor/knocking the opponent off balance as cutting.

Explosives in the real world aren't a pancea in combat situations. They're inflexible and unwieldy to use against anything but a fortified position or as defensive deterrent/ambush. You could easily apply the same logic to that sort of magic. Not that user, but that's the first thing that comes to mind.

Any game that has done the "Limited Time mechanics" in a decent fashion?

Coming from other RPGs the aproach to magic feels a bit, odd.

A good RPG?

Something like Wizardry 8 but with new graphics and more areas seriously something like that released today would be the top of everyones RPG lists.

2D zelda mechanics are prime choice.
just have nicer sprites and the RPG is good to go.

Some of this shit makes me glad idea guys will remain idea guys.

...

what is action-rpg.

Still not Zelda. Zelda isn't an RPG in any way what-so-ever. Not even an action RPG.

Do you not even understand what an RPG is?

why not?

The primary focus of an RPG is character building.

In Zelda you're not building a character, you're solving puzzles in dungeons and engaging in simple combat. You gain items, but that's not so much building a character as getting more shit to play with.

Zelda is an Action-Adventure game. Always has been.

it's one aspect, not necessarily the most important.

And it's also an aspect of Zelda

you gain items, abilities, powerups, weapons, HP, etc, all part of character building.

Sorry, you sound really confused.

Wrong.

Character building is the core of what makes RPGs.

You sound to me like the one confused given you don't even know what the definition for an RPG is, it's hilarious that now you're trying to tell me.

Zelda doesn't have character building, all the elements you mentioned are minor side thoughts to what is, at the end of the day, an Action-Adventure game.

You know why it's an Action-Adventure game? Because the main focus is on action-based combat and puzzle solving.

By your logic Far Cry 3 is an RPG because you gain power ups, abilities, health, and items in that.

lol, you must be new to video games.

hilarious

ya cause RPGs suddenly end once your character is "built" sufficiently. Once you hit lvl 99 it's over, credits role, game over. Cause "character building" is the primary core mechanic….
…gimme a break.

Nice strawman, faggot, maybe you should learn to read because I never said that.

I said it's FOCUS was on PUZZLE SOLVING, which makes it an Adventure game, and that it has Action based combat, which makes it an Action-Adventure game.

Boy, you sure showed me with all those facts and data about how Zelda is all about character building.

What the fuck are you even going on about here? Do you think that when the story ends decides what the game was about?

Are you one of those games are art faggots?

You know you're acting like a smug little bitch for someone who clearly knows dick all about video games.

that's retarded.
if it's focus was Puzzle solving it would be a Puzzle game, not adventure game.

action-rpg.

rpgs have various aspects none of them are necessarily "the most important". Character building is certainly not the primary or core mechanic, its just one aspect, among many.

and Zelda already has character building, better than most RPGs

Holy shit. You know absolutely nothing about video games. It's not like there were ever puzzles in adventure games, m'rite?

Are you 12?

Zelda doesn't have character building in any meaningful way and that's proved by people who do low heart runs. You can't build your character to get you through situations, you just have the same faggot as everyone else. It's basically a character action game but because of the puzzle focus it falls in the Adventure genre.

I tell you what though, I'll humor you, how about YOU define what you think an RPG is.

I'm waiting to laugh my ass off.

adventure games don't primarily focus on puzzles, they just incorporate them, so do traditional RPGs and action-rpgs.

a game that primarily focuses on puzzles is a puzzle game, by definition.

I thought you were new to video games, but I realize you're new to english as well

Are you fucking kidding me?

It's literally the only thing you do in adventure games is solve puzzles to get through to the next area.

Holy shit kid.

A game that is ONLY puzzles is a puzzle game, there are MANY other genres that feature puzzles as a primary core of the experience but aren't Puzzle games.

You absolutely have to be autistic.

And that you're acting this condescending while being so retarded is hilarious.

Honestly how old are you?

Oh and I'm still waiting for that RPG definition.

Low heart runs means you are good at combat and don't need the extra HP. You still have to acquire the right equipment and skills to progress in zelda games, so that's part of character building.

People can solo Final fantasy games, beating ff6 with 1 character that's extremely low level…so I guess FF6 isn't an rpg either.

It is an action adventure game dude.

Give all enemies a reason to exist, a food chain you can fuck up, baby goblins in the dungeons, etc.

No, faggot, Final Fantasy is still focused on character building so it's an RPG.

Zelda, no matter what bullshit you say, isn't about character building. It's an Action Adventure game and you're being an absolute retard right now.

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR DEFINITION OF AN RPG

Yeah, forgot about that one. Obviously, there is no need for grid-based tetris inventory shenaigans, since volume can be expressed by a number too.

So Volume: 35/80
Weight: 20,5kg/50

You are honestly retarded

So far skimming the thread there is Katanas VS longswords and claming non RPGs are RPGs.

Two classic thread derailers.

It's an action-adventure rpg.

so is Zelda.
If you don't build up your character you can't progress.

Not exactly. There is difference in momentum and weight distribution. A mace/hammer will have a much bigger momentum than a sword and will put more "impulse weight" on the bone, for a lack of better wording.

But it should, because the delivery method is very important and plays with the resistance of materials to different types of forces. No matter how much you try, you won't cut trough a plate mail with a sword. But it you thrust with it, you might pierce.

No, user, if you don't solve the puzzle you can't progress.

That's Zelda.

Even the bosses aren't tests of your character, they're tests of how well you use your new item.

It is literally the same thing as the old point and click adventure games: USE ITEM ON SPOT TO KEEP GOING.

At it's core this is Zelda.

I think small numbers should be mandatory to RPG's, both west and east. They are certainly ideal.

Numbers in the tens or hundreds of thousands, or god forbid millions, are fucking retarded. In highly specific games they can be appreciable for an absurd aspect, but this modern day trend of every game having gargantuan numbers needs to stop.

I miss the days when numbers were in the double digits, with true end-game potential reached when you broke the hundreds.

It is my civic duty to inform you that are a retarded nigger. Please kill yourself, or vacate from this site in its entirety.

and traditional rpgs involve puzzles at some point.

how well you use your character and his items.
just like all rpgs.

Nope.

Sorry, this isn't true. Unless the puzzle is: Level up your character enough to rape everything in your way.

STILL WAITING FOR THE RPG DEFINITION FAM

Read

Such magics would be a limited resource (since reagents would be rare) and couldn't be used directly in-combat effectively. Those are more something you do when expecting an attack and preparing defenses or preparing an ambush.

Immersion is fun.

time to trigger some anons

the combination of skilled fast-based gameplay and hardcore role playing system

I want to note, as the guy pointing out that Zelda isn't an RPG, that doesn't mean Action-RPGs aren't a thing or that I think they're shit.

If you mixed action just right with a solid core of character building meeting in that sweet middle ground you could have one hell of a game.

Bethesda keeps trying but they're fucking it up every step of the way, mostly because their programmers are shit though and so they go too far in the simplistic direction when really a true blending would require some SERIOUS fucking coding work.

lol now you're just in denial.
FF7 Shinra building is full of puzzles.
Baldur's Gate 2 has many puzzles, i.e Sorcerer's place puzzles plus the riddles.

I guess those aren't rpgs either cause they have puzzles?

so zelda.

no

zelda is not a hardcore rpg more like action adventure game with light rpg elements

i want something like daggerfall, the burning wheel ,dread , underrail type of rpg system

Again dude, you fucking can't read.

You said:
I said:

Not every traditional RPG features Puzzles. This is a fact.

Also:
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I never said RPGs don't involve puzzles, I said they don't FOCUS on them. Usually they're a side aspect, or even if they're in the way of progression usually it's a simple puzzle and certainly couldn't be called the focus of the game by ANYONE. Even your examples, the puzzles were clear side aspects.

Why are you lumping me in with this reply. I never said Zelda had ANY hardcore RPG elements. It's not an RPG in anyway.

Does no one read shit anymore?

A story that's actually a branching narrative with multiple conclusions and divergent paths, rather than trying to focus on long-ass playthroughs full of useless padding.

That's a lot of angry Lancers. They'll all be dead soon, though.

just like Zelda, they're part of the game not all of it.

I mean come on already, it's CURRENT YEAR and vidya still doesn't real.

Look son, whatever you need to tell yourself at this point.

Not only have I told you you're wrong and thoroughly explained it, the rest of the thread has told you you're wrong.

What this is, basically, is someone who knows shit all about electronic music calling every bit of electronic music they hear Dubstep because they don't know any better.

That's what you're doing with the term RPG.

And no matter what you say you can't win this because the fact is you're just ignorant and wrong.

And on that note, I'm going to stop derailing the thread and go to bed.

you said zelda isn't an rpg because it lacks character building, which we found was wrong.

then you said zelda isn't an rpg because it has puzzles, and rpgs are only allowed to have easy and stupid puzzles, nothing serious…which was wrong.

Trying to get the last word in won't change how wrong you are.

I get that I'm the guy who started the debate with you, so your ego is desperately holding on to the hope that if you can just disprove me you'll some how be right even though multiple people have told you you're wrong, but it doesn't matter.

Whatever you need to tell yourself though.

I can see I won't be getting any "sleep tights", so I will actually be leaving now. Feel free to get in the last word if it makes you feel better.

Everything is an RPG if you just believe, user.

sleep tight pupper

Just a few things.

Did you know COD is an RPG?

You can equip your character, level up, and assign perks.

This means you make characters that play different roles it is a true role playing game.

Affection meters.

convert pathfinder to a video game
kill me

Quoted from the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook:

> As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have.

To be an RPG, a game must have some form of visible statistics which can be seen in a numerical format. You may or may not be able to change them.

Cosmetic character customization is a common feature, but not entirely necessary.

To be an RPG, the game must permit you to have some sort of agency and character interaction. If you are not taking on the role and actually making decisions on behalf of your character, you're not playing an RPG. This can be as simple as either accepting or denying quests, like Dragon's Dogma, or as complex as Planescape: Torment with its lengthy dialogue.

To be an RPG, you must be able to acquire gold, magic items, or some other form of reward. Your character must grow or advance in this regard.

So what is an RPG?

It's a game that:

If a game meets those requirements, it is an RPG. If it does not, it is not an RPG. That is as simple as it can get.

best is to define them by example.

Zelda, Diablo = action-rpg.
Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, = JRPG.
Elder Scrolls, Baldur's Gate = WRPG.

sleep tight pupper

Just a reminder, Zelda is an RPG because you PLAY the ROLE of Zelda. Same with Metroid B^)

Zelda is still action-adventure, user.

it's also an action-rpg

You do realize marketing started slapping "RPG" on every title they could get away with when RPG's became popular?

Being called a RPG and being a RPG are worlds apart.

...

What are you smoking, user?

Oh, I see, you're trolling, nice.

no user don't do that

I prefer the Quest for Glory/Pre-Skyrim Elder Scrolls method of stat progression, where every character has access to all stats, but certain classes have favored stats which get a start-game bonus - and in which stats and skills progress incrementally through usage.

This can lead to abuse where you just grind certain actions which increase the desired stat, rather than engage with monsters or npcs or quests. Though it also helps deter players from grinding all stats and becoming a "jack of all trades, and master of everything" due to how tedious it can be. Also, if you're not a particularly adventurous or imaginative role player who breaks out of their natural inclinations on how to approach a game - then all your character builds will end up kind of samey.

Still, when it works, it works really fucking well and makes sense in the game world. I feel, at least for me, it gives me a greater degree of character ownership and customization that's severely lacking in most RPGs.

You've never played a ttrpg, have you?

Heh, again reminds me of Quest for Glory

If you're playing an adventurer/mercenary who's fighting for his life, you're not going to burden yourself with pointless shit.

Stupid decisions that should hurt you SHOULD hurt you.

huge tits
bikini armor
light hearted themes
sexual silliness
hammers

Sounds boring as fuck.

Where's the cool?

...

the main character wields a warhammer instead of a sword. its automatically cooler than 90% of rpgs

Barely cooler by a degree and only because sword market is over-saturated:

GIVE ME COOLER

I agree, hammers suck. Long live the polearm which is like a sword plus a staff. How fucking awesome is that?

Now we're getting somewhere. You seem like a man that knows his
COOL
What else would you suggest?

Isn't Zelda just "Single player Gauntlet, except not at the arcade"?

Weak female characters. For no reason. Constantly. In every RPG.

well, with the bikini armor you might figure that the main character is a valkyrie or barbarian woman. the social awkwardness might be where some of the like hearted humor comes from.
not understanding the concept of money she might insist on being paid in feasts and weapons where a lot of expensive dishes and furniture get broken

Swords are the most versatile cold weapon.
Deal with it.

so what? its video games

Magic can be infused in stuff, sorta like D&D with magic books with pages you can rip to cast the spell you prepared, but expanding to infusing wands and weapons.

Infused magic weapons do not lose any sharpness as they are still magic and they do additional elemental damage, and cast cool runes wherever they hit.

Wands have a chance of breaking (spell level- wand quality- wizard level%) and dealing the spell to you but they can be used many times with the spell they have on.

Armor can be infused for elemental resistance only.

I feel like the only necessary part of the definition was
But to expound upon that:
The point of narrative agency doesn't sit well with me because then we would be defining a game through it's narrative, where narrative in a game should only exist to contextualize the actions of the player and is not a defined aspect of a game system. The actions in manipulating a game's narrative should have no bearing on what type of game you're defining unless those choices interact with the game's system, thus having an impact on the outcome of player progress - then you should refer to the second point I listed when looking at a potential RPG. If those actions are not based on the character's abilities, then it's not really role-playing - it would be more like a CYOA kind of affair. However, if a game doesn't give the player any narrative agency, that doesn't mean it isn't an RPG, it just means the choice made by a player are based around other aspects of the game.

The gist of this is that the specific kinds of actions a player makes in an RPG (combat, bartering, character interaction, etc) is not what qualifies it, but rather whether or not those actions are either based on building your character or are informed by the build of your character. It's the primary reason why Zelda is not an RPG - you can argue that there is some aspect of character building in those games, but the game is not testing you how you build Link, it simply requires you to gain abilities and items to progress. The primary way the game tests the player is through puzzle solving and action, which aren't so much informed by your player build but rather only made possible by having Link built in a certain way.

Next you say it's a real video game.

But a narrative is central to a RPG.
My choices might be limited depending on the character built (high/low diplomacy or charisma), but ultimatively the choices themselves do not have a root in the mechanic, but rather, how I see my character acting like and what I think of the situation/NPC.

I'm all for proper definitions, but don't be TOO constrictive.
For example, I don't consider a RPG without narrative and character personality (like Diablo) true RPGs.

GURPS already exists.

...

Turn based Darklands.

It's not. To define any game genre by a story or narrative is farcical. As I already said, story only serves to give context to the actions a player takes within in a game.
Except they do. Without the narrative, the choices would seem to be more arbitrary (pick choice A to get outcome A or pick choice B to get outcome B), but they exist nonetheless and have impact on the game's system. Playing pretend at the table was never a core to D&D's system, it was merely a custom to invest people into the game and make the decisions of players seem more meaningful. Of course you could also just play D&D cold, go for pure dungeon crawling sessions with practically no character or story, and it would still be the same game because it doesn't require a narrative in its system.

Boardgamists pls go

Yeah, I get that it's got the weight focused on the head on the end. But if you hit that arm with the end of a similarly weighted sword, the difference in force isn't all that big. Plus, if you have a big hammer/mace head, it's spreading that force out along the entire face of the striking surface. A sword, on the other hand, is putting that force right on the much smaller edge. Regardless of cutting, that means all the weight is being absorbed by a smaller part of the target's arm bone, and that makes a difference.

I fully agree. But in my opinion, the whole force/focus thing I talked about would simulate the same differences. Hard but brittle target? High focus resistance, AKA resistant to everything but blunt. Squishy rubbery target? High force resistance, AKA resistant to blunt and weak to piercing. Similar defense in both stats? Slashing is the best bet.

Realistically that'd be pretty hard, but in a world with dragons and wizards throwing fireballs, superhuman strength isn't out of the question, and basically anything can wreck anything if it hits hard enough. A bullet's just a little piece of metal but when it's traveling at at thousands of feet per second, it's deadly.

But regardless, let's say plate mail has a huge focus resistance. If sword damage is the product of force and focus, and focus is drastically reduced, than the end result is a tiny number. Thus the system simulates plate mail shutting down attacks that are more about cutting than smashing, just like resistance to slashing would.

You know Josh Sawyer wants to make a historical, turn-based RPG like Darklands, yeah?

As a fan of Darklands, I pray this never happens. His taint will only ruin everything.

To completely remove an element just because you don't like it is an even bigger farce.
A RPG without narrative, without the player character element, is pointless. Empty.
I would drop such a game in an instant, even if you have amazing mechanics under the hood. Without it, it's simple not complete.

And it wouldn't be even 1% as fun and engaging.

Not so sure about that. Simulation that simplifies too much and reduced outcomes/options is generally bad. From NuCom to many other games, the level of simplifiaction should be kept under a lot of scrutiny.

I don't like it.
What's the point of playing a human if I'm superhuman? What's hte point of fantasy if everything is fantastical.
Things that have a RL equalent should stay close to it. dragons and magic don't exist. Humans do.

...

Absolutely peasant tier.

Sorry there, dear noble, I'll get out of the way. Wouldn't want your noble feet getting tired standing in this dirt and all.

Not saying I don't like a good story, nor was I advocating for its removal. You just can't define a game's genre by it's story as story has little to no impact on what the gameplay is like - it only serves to dress it up into something more appealing.
Are you serious, nigger? It's a fucking game, not a book.
Are you sure you're not the one dismissing things based on what you do or don't like? You seem to care more about story than gameplay.

We're talking about games here. Story is not an integral factor to them, regardless of genre, and only serves to dress them up. It can be more involved by integrating choices from the game system into the narrative, but even without story the game's systems still exist.

Game that gives EXP based on skill usage and skills having their own EXP and where you have a feel of progressively getting slowly but surely someone who like a force of nature.

Like say you don't get EXP for killing but you got for landing this many consecutive attacks with a set multiplier with the cap being based on your level and because you've fought like this for this amount of time you've earned the needed EXP to increase your skill level, it's slow but each skill level has such a gap that Skill level 1 vs 5 seems like an impossible feat.

Like you land a hit, 1exp and every hit gave 1 exp till you hit skill level 2 that now lets you after the first hit get a X2 exp multiplier till you whiffed a hit or got hit, skill offering more then 1 EXP but still gaining the multiplier, and as you gain skill levels you get points for certain skills that can also effect certain skills evolution in the future like a teleport dash or/and air dash..

You'd learn skills by actually finding someone who'd teach it you but then it's up to the player to actually properly learn it over time instead of instantly knowing it.

Then base the power of skills the player has on the amount of times they use the skill, like when you use this thrust skill at level 1 after using it 300 times and being skill level 5 you can not propel yourself forward with it a ok distance.

Then by level skill level 20 and you've used this skill something like 1000 times you now do something like Stinger level 2 in the Devil May Cry games where it's a propelled tackle for 10 meters with a shock wave on impact and the damage is a world apart from what it used to be.

At Skill level 50 and countless uses pretty much you've mastered this skill to the point it's nothing like what it used to be, you're pretty much instantly teleporting to the target trusting with a sonic boom on impact and is also usable in the air now.

Like no learning Zio, Zionga, Ziodyne, you get a skill and through the constant use you're making it a part of your tool set that will evolve with the character you're playing.

Digging all of this, OP.

nice one user

bump

What's wrong with you?

...

...

Morrowind with good combat.

Tell me what is good combat in your opinion?

The combat in Morrowind feels a little basic outside of spells. You just hammer the mouse button and keep an eye on your health/stamina and that's it mastered. I don't really have any better ideas, I just think the combat is a little boring and I'd like more depth.

Depth comes at the cost of accessibility. I don't think I need to cover which Bethesda considers more important.

Yeah, sure. But Skyrim and Oblivion had shitty combat as well and they were accessible trash.

Is Mount & Blade style combat better? I liked the spell variance of Morrowind, although after a while it did seem to be "shallow" as well.

I honestly want a Dominions 4 levels of spell variance and more interesting combat in RPG's. But I don't know what that combat is like. And I can't make it till I know, so I'm stealing ideas from this thread tbh

Except that's wrong.

An RPG is about how you play the role you've been given. That's the basis of it. Comparing a video game RPG to other genres is the same as comparing a tabletop RPG to a board game like Chess or Monopoly.

Some games are more narrative focused than other. 4E is the ARPG of D&D games, for instance - it's all about combat mechanics. Other editions, less so, with 1E in particular actually shunning combat on the basis that your character will probably fucking die.

Hold on, let me get my book out again to quote the part I missed:

And after:

You suggest playing D&D cold, and while possible, let me tell you that it was only made feasible in the latter editions. Charging into combat was never the way of things. Hell, most of your XP was rewarded for acquiring loot simply because actually fighting the monsters as written would be a disaster.

I will give you one thing: narrative is the wrong word. Story is the proper word. The narrative implies there's one to follow, and even old adventure modules less gave a narrative than a scenario, and its position in a bigger story. You made and shaped the story. The DM could add a narrative, and it could work, or it could not work, based on their skill and experience. But the game was certainly about playing pretend, not about rolling dice and seeing what was spat out.

Don't talk about shit you don't know about.

Nope.

I was just dreaming of a world where a good developer made a spiritual sequel to Morrowind really. The Bethesda of today can't even make Morrowind with shit combat, since that would require them to put thought into the writing and worldbuilding.

I haven't played M&B but I've heard good things. Like you said, it's difficult to think of a better combat system for RPGs.
I thought Dark Souls was okay - it has different movesets for different weapons, as well as a few different attacks you can pull off (light/heavy, riposte, etc.)

Modern Bethesda wouldn't be able to make Morrowind even with shit combat.

Just having a big, varied move pool would be one step up, as well as having good animations with a lot of weight too them. Dark Souls generally pulls this off well I think.

Yes, and playing a role in the game is how you manage that character's attributes and make decisions in the game to progress based on their build. Role playing can certainly exist in the story alongside it, but it's not a necessity of the game - of any game, computer or otherwise.
RPGs aren't this special genre you're making them out to be - they're just games (hence the G). Games are systems of rules. You can't define them by how you tell a story because story doesn't dictate a game's rules and outcomes, it only serves to explain them. You could strip all the story from Planescape Torment and simply replace it with barebones instructions and descriptions of outcomes for choices and it as a game would be exactly the same, if only being much less appealing or engaging to those just in it for the story.
Every "narrative focused" PnP game I've seen has always been just been a "rules-lite" affair that maybe rewards players more talking. Dungeon World claimed to be more narrative focused when in reality it was just a shallower D&D that had an easily gameable system for gaining XP through character interaction - a system which was still based on player's making actions based on character attributes in the game and still didn't necessitate storytelling whatsoever. It was only as "narrative focused" as players wanted to make it.
Nigga what?
You can have a game that's all combat and it could still be an RPG if combat was primarily tested by character builds and choices therein.
No, the game is about the actions players make with their characters and how that interacts with the rules, with or without a story underlying it.

Tell me, are Walking Simulators games? Gone Home and the like are all defined as being "narrative focused experiences" claiming to be games, yet underneath their narrative is no system that tests the player to achieve a certain outcome. If we define RPGs as being games where you tell a story by playing out a role, then I see no reason for Gone Home, Dear Esther, and the rest of their ilk from being games.

Personally, the best RPG mechanics are ones that would tie into the progression of the story and are based on more realistic applications.

I.E. You start of with fists then stick then sword as you get into deeper more menacing enemies you get the loot you need to beat them etc etc…

The definition of game is:

Are walking simulators games? Generally no, because you don't actually offer any interaction. Something like Dear Esther has no rules assigned to it. You just walk. So it cannot be called a game proper.

Except that is not the definition of an RPG. An RPG, as I made perfectly clear earlier, needs:

An RPG which does not have the mechanics of a game is not an RPG because it is not a game. An RPG which does not have a role-playing experience is not an RPG, it is simply a game.

The two are separate aspects of the genre. They are not the same aspect.

You could, but then it would stop being an RPG, and become a fucking animated spreadsheet.

And how many games have you actually played table-top? Any? You're discussing nothing more than the actual rules. Those are not the game. The game is focused on

No, you could not. It would still be an RPG if there was a character who you were playing the role of - either one you created yourself, or one which was assigned to you. Which is why even 4E is still an RPG.

Are you just pretending to be retarded or are you actually retarded? The genre was defined over 40 fucking years ago, stop trying to change it because of your autistic inability to comprehend fucking English.

did you ever work at gamestop or funcoland? cause i had an employee tell me that gobbledygook too

...

Absence of skill-based minigames and other mechanics which render certain attributes/skills pointless.

A prime example of this is the shitty lockpicking minigames in recent Bethesda games. It's possible, with some skill and patience, to pick the hardest locks right even with the lowest level in lockpicking. This is retarded and completely goes against the spirit of an RPG. A low lockpicking skill level is supposed to mean that my character is shit at lockpicking. Therefore he should not be capable of picking master level locks until that stat is raised. My skill as a player shouldn't come into it, because it's not supposed to be about me but the character I have created.

Morrowind got this right. The RNG-based combat and lockpicking makes sense and fits with the the schematic of an RPG. If you want realistic, skill-based combat then play something else. The fun in RPGs is supposed to come from long-term character development.

I've always wandered what that ring on the handle is for.l

Super Puzzle Fighter and Fire Emblem are my favorite action games.

Excellent logic.

AI that isn't nigger-tier retarded.

Survival elements.

For me the biggest problem with RPG's is over leveling. What if there was an RPG that leveled up the enemies based around time played, so the longer you take the tougher they get. It complements the styles of skipping tons of battles and heading straight for the bosses and the playing for 100% completion style, which are basically the two major ways to play typical RPG's. What do you guys think? Would this be a good balancing mechanic?

In combat, you dimwit.

A sword is a perfect balance of speed, reach, impact, while having a large number of techniques to counter pretty much anything.

And you're implying that narrative/story is meaningless to a game and only gameplay matter. Not all games are Super Mario.

So? It's still a part of the game.
A game without sound is still a game. The gameplay is there. You can't honestly tell me it doesn't have a huge impact.

You're the one trying to separate things, not me.
I'm looking at the package, the full picture.

Since no one complained, I'm just going to assume everyone likes my idea of stances/moves/countermoves database linked to character skill and combined with a flexible animation system?

smdh

Why do you even care about that? Bigger numbers allow for finer tweaking of everything, which means effects will be more flexible. If your RPG's HP is measured in the ten (say, 50 average) and you want to make a stackable poison spell that requires continuous casting to be useful, you are fucked because:
>A) too few stacks cause 0 damage, which gives the impression your attacks are doing nothing inb4 "b-but that's okay, you filthy casual!"
You may say "well, then make stats a floating point number!", but that's the same as multiplying a big number by 10^-x. Floats take up more memory than integers and are also slower (a non-argument in this day and age, but the main reason why old school CRPG and also P&P RPG were like this), so at this point you are just complaining about the aesthetics of small numbers vs big numbers, which is dumb.

Shit nigger, you rolled 1d6 for your INT.

The rules and mechanics are just as arbitrary though?

Grab a hammer and swing it in the air. You can feel its force. Grab the hammer by its metal head and swing it, and you will understand why that wouldn't work.

Force equals mass per acceleration. Due to the way circular movement works, velocity (inb4 "velocity is not acceleration!"; it isn't, but the force caused by an impact is actually caused by the deceleration of x m/s to a fraction of that in a fraction of a second, so it actually factors a lot) is much higher at the tip of the weapon. With a similarly weighted sword, the mass is evenly distributed, and so is the impact; instead, all the momentum of the hammer goes into its tip, and that's why they are better at fucking armor's shit up. Fuck, that was the entire reason warhammers were developed in the first place, to deal concussive damage without piercing the armor. Swords tended to bounce, and not exactly because of impact distribution since warhammers also have a pointy end.

Who the fuck cares, though. Halberds and spears is where it's at.

They're not.

Some DM allow a "manual override" for certain tasks, such as persuasion. It's not really a bad thing, they also take into account whether you are talking out of character (your PC is a rude motherfucker who should rather be intimidating people than persuading them, but there you are, sweettalking the librarian so she gives you the book you need; chances are the DM considers that everything you said just sounded better in your head than what you actually spelled) or you are simply replacing the roll with a good interpretation.

The problem with Bethesda games is not that your wizard can lockpick, it's that it is too easy to lockpick without having spent points in it, but that's mostly because lockpicks are way too fucking common. If Security improved the hardness of your lockpick dramatically and good lockpicks (the rest would probably break almost on insertion) were relatively uncommon, only thieves could realistically open Skyrim locks (Oblivion's was so skill based it was not even fun).

With the persuasion minigame, as shit as it was and ignoring the fact that it was a bad replacement for actually befriending NPC, you could simply change the rotation of the correct option at random if the character has low Speechcraft, or if it has high Speechcraft, the NPC could ignore your fuckups.

But the main problem with Bethesda games isn't this, it's that a lot of skills affect such a small part of the game they're never worth choosing as primary skills. Why improve your merchant skills if there is nothing interesting you can buy? Why improve Alchemy if you are going to end with your inventory filled with thousands of fatigue potions? Why improve Speechcraft if only a few quests require a good NPC disposition and you can simply pay them instead? Do you really need Heal Others spells when worthy NPC are immortal and the rest are useless? I think Bethesda realized this by Skyrim, but instead of giving them more utility, they outright removed them. Good job, That Mountain man.

...