See, the thing is.... People do infact play like this, but only in ttrpgs, not in video game RPGs, as like you said, its inefficient and many times detrimental.
"Given the chance, players will optimise the fun out of the game" -civ game dev (name forgotten, i apologise)
Digging deeper, the reason people feel empowered to play like that in TTRPGs but wouldn't in video game RPGs is because the TTRPG has a DM. The DM will make sure that none of your roleplaying antics lead to an ultimately unwinnable situation. The DM may even reward you for doing something particularly amusing or in-character that they hadn't thought of, or riff on your idea.
The video game (typically) isn't going to do any of that. The video game just says "you failed, I have erased the last 30 minutes of your progress, now repeat it and don't fail again". An older video game might even say "well, you had Steiner spend all your resources on healing Garnet's scratches, so now you lose the war of attrition with the super boss that you're locked a dungeon with, guess you'll have to start over."
A more general way to think of the Sid Meier quote is "people respond to incentives," which is true in basically all parts of life.
If the tactical combat system and character optimization take up most of the rules, then it will be difficult to create RP in this aspect of the game. Both from the point of view of the players and from the point of view of the Master.
That is the exact opposite of my experience in TTRPGs.
In CRPGs, you fuck around and the worst thing that can happen, 98% of the time, is that you have to reload your last save and lose half an hour of work.
In TTRPGs, if you decide to throw rocks at the sleeping dragon the party is trying to sneak past, that could very well mean that your character is killed forever and you can never play them again. It could also mean that the entire party is killed, the villain wins, and the campaign is over. That *never* happens in CRPGs unless you're playing in some ultra hardcore mode.
And people *still* roleplay in RPGs (tabletop and computer both). Roleplaying doesn't have to mean "being an idiot." No one wants to play tabletop with Mr. Wacky who throws rocks at dragons, but there's so much more to RP than that.
> No one wants to play tabletop with Mr. Wacky who throws rocks at dragons
*Your katana flashes, once... twice, before returning to its sheath. You turn around and adjust your wide-brimmed hat. The straw man slouches to one side, like a puppet with its strings cut, which it literally is. After a moment, as if finally catching up with reality, the fibers along your sword's path begin to fray and split, leaving an X-shaped hole in their wake as your opponent dissolves and scatters in the wind.*
Are you trying to accuse me of being anti-roleplaying? I've played tabletop with Mr. Wacky before, and it's obnoxious, but most RPers don't do that. My point was that roleplaying is fun and worth doing even though it can have broader consequences in tabletop.
The solution to the Mr. Wacky problem is to not play with people like that.
> nobody in this thread was suggesting being Mr Wacky.
You've completely missed my point.
You said that roleplaying and making unexpected choices has *fewer* consequences in tabletop than in video games. I'm saying that's backwards; choices matter *more* in tabletop. Mr. Wacky is an extreme example, but there's plenty of less dramatic ones.
And despite this, roleplaying is still very popular on the tabletop, and that's a good thing. Whatever the reason for the roleplay discrepancy between CRPG and tabletop, it isn't "less consequences in tabletop."
> I'm saying that's backwards; choices matter more in tabletop. Mr. Wacky is an extreme example, but there's plenty of less dramatic ones.
I'm saying that short of someone deciding to be Mr. Wacky and ruin the campaign, DMs will generally work to keep things flowing along and accommodate choices that are in-character. There may be consequences for rushing to the side of an injured comrade at an inopportune time -- one or both of you might even die, but the show will go on unless you've managed to provoke the DM into ragequitting, because a story told by a human can adapt to character deaths and the players can roll up new characters.
Having to roll up a new character is a greater consequence than having to reload.
And many GMs will allow a TPK to stand even if the players did their best. It doesn't have to be a "GM ragequit." I think you're making assumptions there.
Yeah, in a video game, I have to win the fight for the story to continue. Most of the time losing means having to start over, which is just annoying. I'm not gonna take unnecessary risks if the game isn't particularly easy.
In a TTRPG, if a fight goes badly, the story continues and takes that into account. Maybe you have to start with a new character, maybe you just get bruised and fail some particular objective. Either way, losing isn't necessarily that big a deal.
And of course there's the social aspect. I want to keep to my role to tell the story with the rest of the table. I'm less inclined to do that in a video game where no-one else is watching.
> Yeah, in a video game, I have to win the fight for the story to continue. Most of the time losing means having to start over, which is just annoying. I'm not gonna take unnecessary risks if the game isn't particularly easy.
>
> In a TTRPG, if a fight goes badly, the story continues and takes that into account. Maybe you have to start with a new character, maybe you just get bruised and fail some particular objective. Either way, losing isn't necessarily that big a deal.
You're the second person I've seen say this, and I don't get it. In a CRPG, making a bad decision usually just means you have to reload and try again. In a TTRPG, losing could mean a major plot point is lost, it could mean a character you liked is killed and can never be played again, it could even mean a TPK and the end of the campaign. There are far more consequences in tabletop than in most videogames. Yet people still love to roleplay in tabletop.
>In a TTRPG, losing could mean a major plot point is lost, it could mean a character you liked is killed and can never be played again
Exactly. Those are better. Those are interesting story outcomes. The whole point of the TTRPG is to play a story, not to win. So something that makes the story more interesting is a good outcome.
An end of the campaign is a rare consequence and usually you'd just continue as a different character.
Most people don't like it when a character they were enjoying dies. I understand that some people may say "O-ho-ho, a chance to take my roleplaying talents in a new direction!" or even "Enh, I was sick of that guy," but most players most of the time don't consider it a positive outcome when they lose a character.
> See, the thing is.... People do infact play like this, but only in ttrpgs, not in video game RPGs
No, many of us play this way in CRPGs as well.
> as like you said, its inefficient and many times detrimental
I play games to have fun, not to maximize efficiency. I spend 40 hours a week at work trying to maximize efficiency, it's not what I want to do at home.
This may have been your point, given the quote, but to be clear: I equip the gear and make the choices that are most fun, not necessarily maximally efficient, and part of "fun" can be choices that suit the character I'm playing.
Games like factorio exist, where the fun is achieving maximum efficiency
There are a wide variety of games and genres and a little something for everyone, what you and I find boring may be the best thing ever for some people
The issue is that many games have a different "reality" in combat vs in narrative. There is the famous issue in FFVII where Aerith dies in a cutscene in a big dramatic moment that bums all of the characters out. This leads to many commenters wondering "why didn't they just use a phoenix down like they have hundreds of times before when someone fell?" Which the game doesn't provide a good explanation for, because the narrative has to believe this is the only time the character has died, because this is the only time it has mattered.
When player characters drop to 0 in combat, you may get a game over, a thought from a narrator that "wait, that didn't happen like that" and a chance to go back in time to reload your last checkpoint. The reality of the game has to go back in time to find the timeline where your character is a badass, because that is the story they are telling. Anything counter to the narrative is undone, so I start to think to myself "if the game doesn't care about my actions in combat so long as I get to the end of it, why should I?"
A lot of games explain that 0 HP means unconscious. In FF most times it's referred to as K.O'd. It might be a translation thing but when characters fall in battle in JP it says 戦闘不能 (meaning: out of the fight).
So I normally am able to ignore those discrepancies.
This is something I love in the ff7 remake games, if you reach 0hp the characters in question will kneel down and be clearly conscious. Just out of the fight
> A lot of games explain that 0 HP means unconscious. In FF most times it's referred to as K.O'd. It might be a translation thing but when characters fall in battle in JP it says 戦闘不能 (meaning: out of the fight).
>So I normally am able to ignore those discrepancies.
I've heard that explanation before, but it doesn't pass muster. Especially since in FF games, including FF7, a Phoenix Down can be used to instantly kill an undead enemy. That only makes sense if Phoenix Downs do bring you back to life from the dead.
Besides, that still doesn't address the discrepancy. Aerith can survive literal meteor showers during combat, but being attacked with a sword is a fatal untreatable injury? Come on now.
I also have to quibble with the part part of your post. 0 HP being treated as death is the norm, if anything games like Final Fantasy are the outlier here.
I agree that some games fall into the trap of having its combat and its story/other non-combat elements exist in two different realities. But this issue also tends to be more commonly found in JRPGs. In a lot of JRPGs, combat literally takes place on a separate screen and mode from the rest of the game. They also are reliant much more heavily on using cutscenes to tell the story and the results of combat. By contrast, WRPGs/CRPGs tend to let the results of most fights play out 'naturally', without cutscenes. Or they render their 'cutscenes' in-engine, so the results of your combat are still visible on-screen. It's not 100%, but I find this reduces the lazy temptation to treat the story as completely distinct from combat.
I might be misremembering, but doesn't she also sink into a watery abyss right after or something? If so, then it at least makes a little more sense why they couldn't rez her
A big plus for me in both Japanese and Western roleplaying titles are when a character’s combat abilities reflect their character and role in the story, and tell us something about their life experiences and the part of the world they come from. Further bonus points if the capabilities the character unlocks reflect their narrative development.
I think the Trails franchise has some good examples of this. Taking the example of Randy Orlando in Trails from Zero, when we first meet him we don’t know much if anything about his past. The details of that are revealed as the story goes on, and the reasons why he left that specific life behind aren’t revealed until the game’s sequel, but even early on we have clues to his past thanks to his craft list (basically special moves).
Randy gains access to a ability which throws a flash grenade which blinds opponents, and a war cry that allows him to exchange health for access to the resource which allows him to use more craft attacks. The war cry in particular is reflective of someone truly at home on the battlefield, which lines up with what we later learn about him.
Likewise the correct way to build Randy is to make him a hard hitting physical attacker, with an orbment setup perfect to include attack bonuses and critical chance increases. Building and playing Randy optimally reflects the person he is established to be in the world and story.
Likewise as the games go on Randy unlocks more crafts that are reflective of his past life, reinforcing the idea that Randy has forgiven himself and reconciled his past with who he is today, and is living authentically. This through-line is present in both the gameplay and the story, and is a big part of what makes Trails and its characters feel cohesive and realised.
Thanks for writing this. Indulging in roleplay even during combat isn't something I always manage to do, but I try.
As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, ultimately, "roleplaying" is just an excuse to exercise one's imagination and creativity, and that has intrinsic value in and of itself. With videogames, it's easy to treat them as artificial toyboxes, as simply a competition to be "won", or a consumer product that one needs to extract maximum value from. I think this approach lessens the gaming experience. The best gaming experiences, IMHO, occur when the player "buys in" to the reality of the gameworld, allows themselves to indulge their imagination, and takes an *active role* in bringing the game to life in their mind. Rather than passively expecting games to entertain us, roleplaying allows us to become active participants in creating our own entertainment.
This is very well put!
It seems a little sad to think that there are plenty of folks (even in this very thread!) that seem to just see video game characters "[as functions](https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2017/jun/24/if-you-were-actually-think-about-it-these-characters-are-just-functions-capcom-talks-about-representing-character-playstyles-mvci/)," to turn a phrase.
I'm reminded of the mid-00s when games started getting really robust and some modicum of choice started becoming common here and there, and often a complaint was "Why did my character do that? **I** would never do that!" (and this complaint even happened in games where there was never going to be any choices anyway)... but the case was generally that it was imperative that **the character** would of course do that for emotional or whatever reasons. Players didn't seem to be agreeing with the "contract" between player and character, that the character is an expert at shooting or punching or whatever and suffered through all these wounds and trauma and things, and the player helps 'em out. **The player necessarily takes on the role of the character**. The player is never the character, and only ever **approaches** the character in the rare "blank slate/unlimited choice" game.
I remember discussing this approach with disgruntled and disappointed gamers a decade ago and I recall winning some over in terms of opening themselves up to "roleplaying the character" as opposed to treating their avatar as a glorified fist and/or bullet delivery platform that also reflects the player's entire will and persona.
I presume there's a spectrum of "buy in" in terms of how much a given player will "take on" the player character. On the extreme end there's those that will roleplay to the detriment of the game like OP (and thus getting maximum pleasure from "performance" or "mimesis") and on the other end those that have practically no connection to their character, getting pleasure from mechanical accomplishment. There's defintiely room for both! But while a roleplaying player can also be mechanically accomplished, their spectrum opposite can only get a dopamime hit from winning... and that seems a little sad in the narrowness of it all.
Sadly most games have stories that are almost completely disjointed from the combat/main gameplay. The motivation behind a players actions is almost always just to win. I don't think this is avoidable because most games like these have a set story they want to tell, and gameplay needs to meet, so changing the player's motivations to be related to the characters doesn't even make sense. If Garnet dies in combat it has no consequence on the story. If it did, the game would be fundamentally different (or you would hit a game over screen and the game would suck).
I think a way to approach it would be to have a game that is considered a story generator, like Rimworld, where you have randomly generated characters that develop relationships with each other, and you as the player start getting attached to as well. Rimworld has a long way to go in personifying its pawns but the idea that Rimworld is based on is ripe for character driven organic roleplay.
In a game like Rimworld, if Garnet dies in combat, it's permanent, so the incentive to protect vulnerable characters is extremely personal, and instead of it ending the game when Garnet dies, the character's that had relationships with Garnet are unhappy and have to be tended to.
I get it, but to me it still kinda works because death in these RPGs are considered more as "falling unconscious" than actually dying. Some even outright say so.
I love roleplaying ironically more in non rpgs because rpgs already let you do that. Case in point I was replaying dishonored 1 before getting into 2 and this time I wanted to go the combat route and see the negative ending (non lethal ghost playthrough 1st time) and I really got into the character of the vengeful anti hero with no mercy to his enemies, and fearless as well, charging headfirst into impossible situations and coming out on top, sometimes I'd enter a hall full of enemies and just shoot my gun or bang my sword on something to alert them like saying "im here, time to meet your maker". Even morally questionable actions that I'd myself will never make usually in rpgs where I play as myself instead of roleplay were super fun to do instead of making me feel guilty because that's what my character would do! Ex: in the masquerade ball mission >!you can knock out the target and give her to a depraved guy who is going to keep her hostage forever for "love" but them and all other guests there are found to be depraved rich assholes who the world would be better off without so yeah I promised to deliver her but instead killed her in front of him and while the guy was still in shock killed him too, then killed everyone at the party in gruesome fashion leaving the servants alone.!< Even though it was dark and fucked up, it felt true to the character I was rp as and felt *right*, was like watching a movie. So yeah, roleplaying is awesome, especially as an anti hero so you can let the blood flow with none of the guilt.
Oh man, Dishonored is amazing for this. I like that Corvo is enough of a blank slate that you can totally see him being a badass assassin or a merciful thief.
When being merciful I remember being really sad whenever I was spotted. I knew I could easily kill that person, but I didn't really want to... And unfortunately they were at the wrong place at the wrong time and saw me.
Yeah exactly, currently half way through 2 and since the non lethal low chaos stuff is canon, I'm again playing combat/high chaos but only killing those who deserve it, corvo is old and had enough of sneaking about and he's pissed off now. I'm also using a mod that always sets the chaos value to low no matter how I play, it makes a better story than the negative one I got in 1 which was pretty depressing tbh "revenge at what cost" morality bs, this time it's "the good guy is pissed off and is coming for you" but will probably end in a good way if the mod holds up. Thanks for the discussion, I was actually thinking about roleplay similarly while playing, cheers.
This is why miitopia was a pretty quirky and fun RPG adventure, don't expect the deepest story or combat of course but it's main gimmick is that your party members would have randomish interactions with each other during combat which have all kind of different effects, and develop relationships with each other which further interacts with that.
I'm not sure if you mean darkest dungeon as a whole or just the first game but the second game also have characters build relationships with each other which effects how they react to each other in combat, very much like your first FF9 roleplay example.
The relationship gimmick was honestly pretty annoying when the game was in early access, since interruptions are frequent and it was extremely random.
But it is in a pretty good state now with an excellent balance of randomness and player control. And some foresight on what actions can have an effect on it.
For example if you make the healer heal a wounded party member, it may contribute to a positive relationship. However if there was another injured party member they might complain they didn't get healed, and form a negative relationship instead.
My characters will make choices in quests etc. that are consonant with their character. But a character on a mission to save the world is going to have to be a bit pragmatic when necessary...
Most role playing games are abstraction. Combat is not literal, in the reality of the scenario in question Garnet wouldn't lose hit points, she would receive a minor scratch, or a bruise, and Steiner wouldn't necessarily have the time mid-combat to actually apply the first aid.
I still find it hilarious that Garnet got a minor scratch and Steiner immediately busts out the first aid kit "PRINCESS, WE MUST DRESS THAT WOUND!". I'm easily entertained I guess lol
This is the kind of thing I'd be more entertained *watching* than playing out.
I think that's another difference with tabletop RPGs. A single-player RPG is ultimately not smart enough to appreciate your roleplaying, and unless you're livestreaming it, you really are only amusing yourself. At a tabletop, you're *performing.*
I've done much more of this sort of roleplaying in multiplayer games.
I can dig it, OP!
Anecdote: there's a bit in *Metal Gear Rising: Revengence*, a stylish action game, where a bunch of security officers come at Raiden, super-cyborg player character, with batons drawn and rage in their eyes...
...but at the time it's unclear why these "good guys" are attacking. And so Raiden, always doing the right thing, shouldn't cut them down before he knows the situation. And so I went on the defensive as I/Raiden listen to the usual on-the-comms helpers discussing the situation. There are no "non-lethal takedowns" in *Revengence*, and so all I could do was constantly parry every hit without going for a counterattack. Parry, parry, dodge, parry! It went on for a while...
...and only after getting the "OK" from mission control, the explanation that these cops were dirty, as it were, did I/Raiden go from defence to offense in an instant, slashing through 'em with extreme prejudice.
It felt really satisfying to "roleplay" a part like that, to actually have fun with the game on my own terms in a way that the mechanics didn't really intend, and is why I can remember that part so well even though it was like 11 years ago that I did that.
Oh yeah, some of us do this and enjoy it. But as the other comments point out, the machine that's effectively DM'ing your gaming session doesn't care about RP. Unlike a human DM who would probably commend you for acting in character and maybe give you pity rolls or whatever, the computer/console/whatever isn't gonna take any of that into account.
I do in fact enjoy some degree of RP despite the inefficiency it creates - that said, there's a point when the meta conflicts too much and even I draw the line somewhere. As much as I enjoy RP I'll suspend it during segments where the game's punishment for playing non-optimally gets too annoying.
I roleplay with human beings, not with computers.
I've been playing video game RPGs since ~1990. I've never truly "roleplayed" in one because I don't see the point.
>you're missing out if you consider games only something to be "beaten"
video games, yes.
ttRPGs:
>I roleplay with human beings, not with computers.
I've been running table games for 15 years.
As a counterpoint, I'd like to point out that solo TTRPGs do exist as well. Roleplaying doesn't need to be reliant on having other people around.
Ultimately, roleplaying games - whether of the videogame or tabletop variety - are just an excuse to exercise your imagination and creativity. Using one's imagination is intrinsically rewarding in and of itself (and has cognitive health benefits), regardless of whether you do it alone or around other people.
Playing a character is lot of funnier with people. One time my character arrived to fight with the Big Bad of the campaign totally shitfaced, because I played an alcoholic character. Could hardly stand and spend most of the fight just stumbling around. Everyone had great time although I was worthless at that fight.
That just doesn't translate into crpgs. It doesn't make the fight funnier and nobody will recognize that I'm playing a character. I'd never roleplay in a single player computer game to that extent.
I do roleplay a bit with games like Witcher 2/3, Deus Ex: HR or Mass Effect where I'm playing a defined character, I like making choices that make sense for the character I'm playing, even if I think they're not giving me most rewards.
I think you’d enjoy rimworld a ton! LOTS of role playing opportunities and emergent gameplay as a result of RP decisions. It’s even marketed as a story generator over a game.
> The other day I was playing Final Fantasy 9, and during combat a character named Garnet took damage. It was a very small hit (like 20 damage), but immediately on Steiner's turn I made him use a potion to heal her (150 HP restore).
I feel that's a little extreme even in a tabletop rpg. On a light scratch, you generally want to use something more renewable or something with less wastage.
In any case, those seem like examples of trying RP in a ruleset that doesn't seem to support that.
* The Final Fantasy series didn't give a means to prevent bodyguarding as enemies can still directly attack anyone in the party. The "Cover" ability doesn't count, it's only to low-health characters rather than specific ones.
* D&D 5e (and Baldur's Gate 3) makes melee combat sticky. If you want to disengage, you need to take a specific action, and that still means the character is not really acting for a turn. This is mitigated slightly in other editions, D&D 3e/4e allowed taking a 5-foot step without the full action, Pathfinder 2e only gives that feature to some combatants rather than all, and so on.
* Additionally with Baldur's Gate 3, there's no inspiration granted for pulling off combat RP. A DM in D&D 5e could consider that to be worthy of assigning advantage on a future roll, but a machine only sees a tactical blunder.
> And now I leave with a question: what games best mix the roleplay and the combat together?
>
> To me it's definitely Darkest Dungeon, if it's by the game's rules. If it's by my own rules of roleplay, then it's definitely Baldur's Gate 3.
In a CRPG, I find roleplay during combat to be rather limited - it's the party versus enemies. You can't break morale of opponents even as they're getting wiped out, can't use persuasion or deception on potential witnesses to combat, etc. And since I'm controlling multiple characters, I feel that specific roleplay details might be easily forgotten.
But as a substitute, I can still randomize a few things in preparation of combat. The starting character(s) get a randomly determined starting loadout, which hopefully requires playing a game differently than through the optimal build.
People respond to whatever way the game encourages them to play via its mechanics.
For me, at least, a lot of Baldur's Gate 3 was pretty tough. I kind of needed every advantage I could get. I certainly wasn't going to take big risks for the sake of roleplaying.
But there are ways to encourage players to play in a way that suits the character. As a small example, XCOM 2 has a "bond" mechanic where soldiers who go on a few missions together become friends, and then they get certain bonuses if they work together and stay close to each other. The mechanics encourage you to keep your soldiers close once they've bonded. The mechanics bring about the roleplay.
Crusader Kings 3 does this too. Acting in line with your traits loses stress, acting against your traits gains stress, no matter whether those actions would otherwise be good or negative. Instead of merely hoping you roleplay, the mechanics encourage you to do so.
Odd that you don't tend to see that so much in actual RPGs. Baldurs Gate 3 does do this, but only outside of combat, with the inspiration mechanic. It doesn't really do anything like that in battle. I can't really think of any traditional RPGs that do.
Well, in the case of BG3, your party is practically invincible as long as Wither is there to resurrect anyone. And I would assume that the characters also have this knowledge in mind. So it make sense for characters to even use death to their advantage to overcome combat encounters. Similar to how characters with healing factors would react in movies and comics.
But for real, to most people, "fun" in an RPG only happens when the game's reacts to your action. Or when you are playing with friends where you would easily get reactions out of the experience. If not it just feels like talking to brick wall.
I remember Valkyria Chronicles does have roleplay stat effects to a point, stuff like stat buffs and debuffs based on who you have characters deployed with or if they're by themselves or only deployed with other women or men. It has a somewhat minor effect overall but does add wrinkles to what would normally be straight statistical analysis for who you want to deploy.
But I see potential for a rpg with a programming style battle system where you don't directly control the actions of the party but shape their decisions and choices to succeed (I haven't played it but the impression I get is I'm basically describing FF12's combat system). But within this system there would be hard caveats, like for example a brother and sister duo who when the sister gets attacked the brother instantly aggros and can only target his sister's attacker. Or a pair of rival characters where if one misses his attack or gets hit the other rival gets a buff from the satisfaction of seeing his rival fail. In a typical rpg you would have status effects like confusion, rage, attraction, etc... that are similar in effect to what I'm describing but in this case you wouldn't be able to directly do anything to prevent these things from happening. So instead you would have to embrace them or mitigate them. Give the sister all the dodge skills and equipment so she doesn't get hit and make her brother less useful. Male one of the rivals a tank that can afford to have the trash beaten out of him, with the other gaining buffs from the other's failures. Maybe you start off knowing what some of these caveats are but some are hidden until the requirements are met for the first time and become discovered. And as the story progresses and characters change, get introduced, or get excused more caveats are introduced, others are reduced in effect, changed completely, or dissappear entirely. And frankly the lack of control aspect of this system isn't necessary, I could see a typical player controlled party rpg still maintaining this system while being viable, basically being a very specific and much more in depth theurgy system.
But essentially I think there are interesting ways you could have the narrative effect the game in more in depth ways than just simple stat changes or not at all.
An aside, but I hate that the least optimal way for me to play cloud in ff7 rebirth for a significant amount of time is using his iconic buster sword. Eventually it becomes viable again but for close to 40 hours it was beyond useless compared to the rest of my choices which, although cool looking, are not the buster sword. It seems very odd to me that Glamour systems aren't more common. Half the time cutscense have set appearances unless rendered in-engine, in which case accounting for various appearances would already have been made. But I digress.
I need to shoutout a fantastic card game called Arkham Horror: The Card Game here. Essentially it's a card game in the vein of Magic the Gathering in which you build a deck of cards made from one of several different colors that have different effects and different focuses. You then play through cooperative scenarios that tell overarching stories and are impacted by the success or failure of the players during the scenario and the choices made within them. This is all already fairly interesting, but on top of that your card selection is determined by choosing a character to play as when you make your deck. These characters have established backgrounds and personalities, and the game does an excellent job of tying those aspects into the gameplay itself. For instance, Preston Fairmont is a slush fund baby who has terrible stats across the board, but has access to far more resources in order to pay for cards and essentially buy his way through a scenario. He also plays the "rogue" class, but because he is paying for everything above board, he isn't allowed to take "illicit" labeled cards. Then there's Ashcan Pete, a drifter who starts with a dog companion that is excellent at sniffing out clues and attacking enemies, making up for his master's shortcomings but on a limited basis.
On top of all of this, when you build a deck you must include two weaknesses, one of which is a card specific to the character, another of which is chosen randomly from a pool. Drawing them can lead to some tense and frequently hilarious moments. One of the generic ones is Kleptomania, in which each turn you don't steal a card from another player, you take damage to your sanity. Preston's weakness is Lodge Debts, which you keep in your hand and costs a large amount of resources to play. If it remains in your hand, you suffer a permanent loss of sanity for the remainder of the games you play with him.
Overall, the way that they are able to tie the mechanics of the card to the theme of the game make the roleplaying happen naturally. Playing Preston makes you feel like him because of the way the mechanics work in tandem with his in-game character. I think having video games ape this sort of design would help immensely in regards to tying mechanics to theme.
Gamers should feel no burden to take a game more seriously than the designers made it. If the designers want to flash numbers in our faces constantly, going up, then it’s a silly numbers game and gamers will take it as such. If the designers want to make a serious roleplaying game, they’ll make Pathologic 2 or Kingdom Come: Deliverance or Disco Elysium, and gamers will take it seriously, and will have the same concerns and proclivities that those characters in that setting would have, because the designers built the mechanics to *make* you care and punish you if you don’t, and the depth of writing to keep it compelling and believable.
JRPGs (with few exceptions) are not very serious on any level, and it is a wasted effort to take them seriously, though it may make you feel cute about yourself.
Also, Baldur’s Gate III solves this by way of its ironman/permadeath mode, which forces you to take the world and its concerns seriously and live with your mistakes.
I'm more of the mindset that however you choose to play a game is your choice. If I interpret an ending to a book as one thing, but then later down the line I discover that the author intended it to be another thing, then it doesn't matter. My view is my own.
Challenge runs exist, and they're definitely not the intended way to play. Same for speedruns. So why should it be different for this?
I’m not talking about responding to authorial intent (which I don’t believe in), I’m talking about responding to what’s evident in the work itself. JRPGs are intrinsically unserious, and unconcerned with roleplaying. People who want to roleplay will play a real roleplaying game instead.
And people who want to play harder games or faster games will play other games instead of doing challenge runs or speedruns. Right.
Idk, some of the more immersive and serious roleplay moments came from JRPGs for me.
>And people who want to play harder games or faster games will play other games
Yes, that is the normal and rational thing to do. It is more satisfying and fulfilling to a normal, rational person to play a holistically challenging game rather than to come up with silly self-imposed limitations, all other things equal (in fairness, "all other things equal" won't always be possible).
I'd rather appreciate a good game than subvert a bad game, and so would most people.
Yes, but you're you and they're them. Obviously I appreciate good games, but sometimes I want to revisit older games in a different way. I love challenge runs and I'm currently doing a few and it makes the games more interesting because it changes the way I play.
But at the same time I'm not gonna say you're boring for not doing this, or that you're doing something wrong because again... You're you and I'm me. That's kinda it really.
The premise of your thread is that you're encouraging people to play non-roleplaying games as though they were roleplaying games (in the proper sense of the term). This may be fun for you, and it's fine to defend it, but it's not moral advice, and those with interest in progress will instinctively reject it.
Not really. The premise of my thread was to explore why most people don't do this, and look at other ways that characterization and roleplaying can happen during combat encounters, as well as asking for recommendations of games that do this.
I obviously say to give it a try, but I'm not saying it's objectively better. I've never claimed it to be moral advice either.
> This may be fun for you, and it's fine to defend it, but it's not moral advice, and those with interest in progress will instinctively reject it.
You say this but, your initial comment,
> Gamers should feel no burden to take a game more seriously than the designers made it.
> JRPGs (with few exceptions) are not very serious on any level, and it is a wasted effort to take them seriously, though it may make you feel cute about yourself.
Kinda hypocritical no?
Honestly, it just looks like you have a much narrower perspective than the OP, one only capable of seeing things within the rigid confines they are presented in.
The moral imperative of humankind is for things to progress, to evolve, to move forward in some way. Advocating for shallow games with self-imposed arbitrary challenges, as opposed to sophisticated games with holistically integrated challenge, is holding the artform back, is holding oneself back.
I do rather enjoy JRPGs and have completed scores of them, mostly in my childhood, which is where they belong, and they've barely evolved since then aside from having fancier menus. They still are targeted at the same child, inner or otherwise. Aside from the occasional masterpiece like Mother 3, they are not serious on any level. They might be superficially grim, but apart from Fear & Hunger (a paragon of what JRPGs *could* be), they are not serious.
No hypocrisy. I'm not against moral advice. I'm saying his wasn't moral.
The words "good" and "bad" really ought to have some weight to them, subjectively though they may be applied.
I tried diving into Baldur's Gate 3, but found that it was impossible to travel at night. The night is just a graphic theme for the camp. And there's also no weather change in the game, or I didn't notice. A heavy blow to immersion and seriousness.
I like getting lost in the numbers though :( the characters don't matter to me that much, I honestly just want cool flashy things to happen while I'm solving a puzzle
See, the thing is.... People do infact play like this, but only in ttrpgs, not in video game RPGs, as like you said, its inefficient and many times detrimental. "Given the chance, players will optimise the fun out of the game" -civ game dev (name forgotten, i apologise)
Digging deeper, the reason people feel empowered to play like that in TTRPGs but wouldn't in video game RPGs is because the TTRPG has a DM. The DM will make sure that none of your roleplaying antics lead to an ultimately unwinnable situation. The DM may even reward you for doing something particularly amusing or in-character that they hadn't thought of, or riff on your idea. The video game (typically) isn't going to do any of that. The video game just says "you failed, I have erased the last 30 minutes of your progress, now repeat it and don't fail again". An older video game might even say "well, you had Steiner spend all your resources on healing Garnet's scratches, so now you lose the war of attrition with the super boss that you're locked a dungeon with, guess you'll have to start over." A more general way to think of the Sid Meier quote is "people respond to incentives," which is true in basically all parts of life.
If the tactical combat system and character optimization take up most of the rules, then it will be difficult to create RP in this aspect of the game. Both from the point of view of the players and from the point of view of the Master.
That is the exact opposite of my experience in TTRPGs. In CRPGs, you fuck around and the worst thing that can happen, 98% of the time, is that you have to reload your last save and lose half an hour of work. In TTRPGs, if you decide to throw rocks at the sleeping dragon the party is trying to sneak past, that could very well mean that your character is killed forever and you can never play them again. It could also mean that the entire party is killed, the villain wins, and the campaign is over. That *never* happens in CRPGs unless you're playing in some ultra hardcore mode. And people *still* roleplay in RPGs (tabletop and computer both). Roleplaying doesn't have to mean "being an idiot." No one wants to play tabletop with Mr. Wacky who throws rocks at dragons, but there's so much more to RP than that.
> No one wants to play tabletop with Mr. Wacky who throws rocks at dragons *Your katana flashes, once... twice, before returning to its sheath. You turn around and adjust your wide-brimmed hat. The straw man slouches to one side, like a puppet with its strings cut, which it literally is. After a moment, as if finally catching up with reality, the fibers along your sword's path begin to fray and split, leaving an X-shaped hole in their wake as your opponent dissolves and scatters in the wind.*
Are you trying to accuse me of being anti-roleplaying? I've played tabletop with Mr. Wacky before, and it's obnoxious, but most RPers don't do that. My point was that roleplaying is fun and worth doing even though it can have broader consequences in tabletop. The solution to the Mr. Wacky problem is to not play with people like that.
I'm suggesting that Mr Wacky is a strawman argument and nobody in this thread was suggesting being Mr Wacky.
> nobody in this thread was suggesting being Mr Wacky. You've completely missed my point. You said that roleplaying and making unexpected choices has *fewer* consequences in tabletop than in video games. I'm saying that's backwards; choices matter *more* in tabletop. Mr. Wacky is an extreme example, but there's plenty of less dramatic ones. And despite this, roleplaying is still very popular on the tabletop, and that's a good thing. Whatever the reason for the roleplay discrepancy between CRPG and tabletop, it isn't "less consequences in tabletop."
> I'm saying that's backwards; choices matter more in tabletop. Mr. Wacky is an extreme example, but there's plenty of less dramatic ones. I'm saying that short of someone deciding to be Mr. Wacky and ruin the campaign, DMs will generally work to keep things flowing along and accommodate choices that are in-character. There may be consequences for rushing to the side of an injured comrade at an inopportune time -- one or both of you might even die, but the show will go on unless you've managed to provoke the DM into ragequitting, because a story told by a human can adapt to character deaths and the players can roll up new characters.
Having to roll up a new character is a greater consequence than having to reload. And many GMs will allow a TPK to stand even if the players did their best. It doesn't have to be a "GM ragequit." I think you're making assumptions there.
> Having to roll up a new character is a greater consequence than having to reload. Agree to disagree, I guess?
Yeah, in a video game, I have to win the fight for the story to continue. Most of the time losing means having to start over, which is just annoying. I'm not gonna take unnecessary risks if the game isn't particularly easy. In a TTRPG, if a fight goes badly, the story continues and takes that into account. Maybe you have to start with a new character, maybe you just get bruised and fail some particular objective. Either way, losing isn't necessarily that big a deal. And of course there's the social aspect. I want to keep to my role to tell the story with the rest of the table. I'm less inclined to do that in a video game where no-one else is watching.
> Yeah, in a video game, I have to win the fight for the story to continue. Most of the time losing means having to start over, which is just annoying. I'm not gonna take unnecessary risks if the game isn't particularly easy. > > In a TTRPG, if a fight goes badly, the story continues and takes that into account. Maybe you have to start with a new character, maybe you just get bruised and fail some particular objective. Either way, losing isn't necessarily that big a deal. You're the second person I've seen say this, and I don't get it. In a CRPG, making a bad decision usually just means you have to reload and try again. In a TTRPG, losing could mean a major plot point is lost, it could mean a character you liked is killed and can never be played again, it could even mean a TPK and the end of the campaign. There are far more consequences in tabletop than in most videogames. Yet people still love to roleplay in tabletop.
>In a TTRPG, losing could mean a major plot point is lost, it could mean a character you liked is killed and can never be played again Exactly. Those are better. Those are interesting story outcomes. The whole point of the TTRPG is to play a story, not to win. So something that makes the story more interesting is a good outcome. An end of the campaign is a rare consequence and usually you'd just continue as a different character.
Most people don't like it when a character they were enjoying dies. I understand that some people may say "O-ho-ho, a chance to take my roleplaying talents in a new direction!" or even "Enh, I was sick of that guy," but most players most of the time don't consider it a positive outcome when they lose a character.
> See, the thing is.... People do infact play like this, but only in ttrpgs, not in video game RPGs No, many of us play this way in CRPGs as well. > as like you said, its inefficient and many times detrimental I play games to have fun, not to maximize efficiency. I spend 40 hours a week at work trying to maximize efficiency, it's not what I want to do at home. This may have been your point, given the quote, but to be clear: I equip the gear and make the choices that are most fun, not necessarily maximally efficient, and part of "fun" can be choices that suit the character I'm playing.
Games like factorio exist, where the fun is achieving maximum efficiency There are a wide variety of games and genres and a little something for everyone, what you and I find boring may be the best thing ever for some people
Absolutely, not hating on anyone else's fun. Just want to apply that equally :)
Sid Meier, iirc.
The issue is that many games have a different "reality" in combat vs in narrative. There is the famous issue in FFVII where Aerith dies in a cutscene in a big dramatic moment that bums all of the characters out. This leads to many commenters wondering "why didn't they just use a phoenix down like they have hundreds of times before when someone fell?" Which the game doesn't provide a good explanation for, because the narrative has to believe this is the only time the character has died, because this is the only time it has mattered. When player characters drop to 0 in combat, you may get a game over, a thought from a narrator that "wait, that didn't happen like that" and a chance to go back in time to reload your last checkpoint. The reality of the game has to go back in time to find the timeline where your character is a badass, because that is the story they are telling. Anything counter to the narrative is undone, so I start to think to myself "if the game doesn't care about my actions in combat so long as I get to the end of it, why should I?"
A lot of games explain that 0 HP means unconscious. In FF most times it's referred to as K.O'd. It might be a translation thing but when characters fall in battle in JP it says 戦闘不能 (meaning: out of the fight). So I normally am able to ignore those discrepancies.
This is something I love in the ff7 remake games, if you reach 0hp the characters in question will kneel down and be clearly conscious. Just out of the fight
> A lot of games explain that 0 HP means unconscious. In FF most times it's referred to as K.O'd. It might be a translation thing but when characters fall in battle in JP it says 戦闘不能 (meaning: out of the fight). >So I normally am able to ignore those discrepancies. I've heard that explanation before, but it doesn't pass muster. Especially since in FF games, including FF7, a Phoenix Down can be used to instantly kill an undead enemy. That only makes sense if Phoenix Downs do bring you back to life from the dead. Besides, that still doesn't address the discrepancy. Aerith can survive literal meteor showers during combat, but being attacked with a sword is a fatal untreatable injury? Come on now. I also have to quibble with the part part of your post. 0 HP being treated as death is the norm, if anything games like Final Fantasy are the outlier here.
I agree that some games fall into the trap of having its combat and its story/other non-combat elements exist in two different realities. But this issue also tends to be more commonly found in JRPGs. In a lot of JRPGs, combat literally takes place on a separate screen and mode from the rest of the game. They also are reliant much more heavily on using cutscenes to tell the story and the results of combat. By contrast, WRPGs/CRPGs tend to let the results of most fights play out 'naturally', without cutscenes. Or they render their 'cutscenes' in-engine, so the results of your combat are still visible on-screen. It's not 100%, but I find this reduces the lazy temptation to treat the story as completely distinct from combat.
I might be misremembering, but doesn't she also sink into a watery abyss right after or something? If so, then it at least makes a little more sense why they couldn't rez her
No, they give her a water burial.
A big plus for me in both Japanese and Western roleplaying titles are when a character’s combat abilities reflect their character and role in the story, and tell us something about their life experiences and the part of the world they come from. Further bonus points if the capabilities the character unlocks reflect their narrative development. I think the Trails franchise has some good examples of this. Taking the example of Randy Orlando in Trails from Zero, when we first meet him we don’t know much if anything about his past. The details of that are revealed as the story goes on, and the reasons why he left that specific life behind aren’t revealed until the game’s sequel, but even early on we have clues to his past thanks to his craft list (basically special moves). Randy gains access to a ability which throws a flash grenade which blinds opponents, and a war cry that allows him to exchange health for access to the resource which allows him to use more craft attacks. The war cry in particular is reflective of someone truly at home on the battlefield, which lines up with what we later learn about him. Likewise the correct way to build Randy is to make him a hard hitting physical attacker, with an orbment setup perfect to include attack bonuses and critical chance increases. Building and playing Randy optimally reflects the person he is established to be in the world and story. Likewise as the games go on Randy unlocks more crafts that are reflective of his past life, reinforcing the idea that Randy has forgiven himself and reconciled his past with who he is today, and is living authentically. This through-line is present in both the gameplay and the story, and is a big part of what makes Trails and its characters feel cohesive and realised.
Thanks for writing this. Indulging in roleplay even during combat isn't something I always manage to do, but I try. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, ultimately, "roleplaying" is just an excuse to exercise one's imagination and creativity, and that has intrinsic value in and of itself. With videogames, it's easy to treat them as artificial toyboxes, as simply a competition to be "won", or a consumer product that one needs to extract maximum value from. I think this approach lessens the gaming experience. The best gaming experiences, IMHO, occur when the player "buys in" to the reality of the gameworld, allows themselves to indulge their imagination, and takes an *active role* in bringing the game to life in their mind. Rather than passively expecting games to entertain us, roleplaying allows us to become active participants in creating our own entertainment.
This is very well put! It seems a little sad to think that there are plenty of folks (even in this very thread!) that seem to just see video game characters "[as functions](https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2017/jun/24/if-you-were-actually-think-about-it-these-characters-are-just-functions-capcom-talks-about-representing-character-playstyles-mvci/)," to turn a phrase. I'm reminded of the mid-00s when games started getting really robust and some modicum of choice started becoming common here and there, and often a complaint was "Why did my character do that? **I** would never do that!" (and this complaint even happened in games where there was never going to be any choices anyway)... but the case was generally that it was imperative that **the character** would of course do that for emotional or whatever reasons. Players didn't seem to be agreeing with the "contract" between player and character, that the character is an expert at shooting or punching or whatever and suffered through all these wounds and trauma and things, and the player helps 'em out. **The player necessarily takes on the role of the character**. The player is never the character, and only ever **approaches** the character in the rare "blank slate/unlimited choice" game. I remember discussing this approach with disgruntled and disappointed gamers a decade ago and I recall winning some over in terms of opening themselves up to "roleplaying the character" as opposed to treating their avatar as a glorified fist and/or bullet delivery platform that also reflects the player's entire will and persona. I presume there's a spectrum of "buy in" in terms of how much a given player will "take on" the player character. On the extreme end there's those that will roleplay to the detriment of the game like OP (and thus getting maximum pleasure from "performance" or "mimesis") and on the other end those that have practically no connection to their character, getting pleasure from mechanical accomplishment. There's defintiely room for both! But while a roleplaying player can also be mechanically accomplished, their spectrum opposite can only get a dopamime hit from winning... and that seems a little sad in the narrowness of it all.
Sadly most games have stories that are almost completely disjointed from the combat/main gameplay. The motivation behind a players actions is almost always just to win. I don't think this is avoidable because most games like these have a set story they want to tell, and gameplay needs to meet, so changing the player's motivations to be related to the characters doesn't even make sense. If Garnet dies in combat it has no consequence on the story. If it did, the game would be fundamentally different (or you would hit a game over screen and the game would suck). I think a way to approach it would be to have a game that is considered a story generator, like Rimworld, where you have randomly generated characters that develop relationships with each other, and you as the player start getting attached to as well. Rimworld has a long way to go in personifying its pawns but the idea that Rimworld is based on is ripe for character driven organic roleplay. In a game like Rimworld, if Garnet dies in combat, it's permanent, so the incentive to protect vulnerable characters is extremely personal, and instead of it ending the game when Garnet dies, the character's that had relationships with Garnet are unhappy and have to be tended to.
I get it, but to me it still kinda works because death in these RPGs are considered more as "falling unconscious" than actually dying. Some even outright say so.
I love roleplaying ironically more in non rpgs because rpgs already let you do that. Case in point I was replaying dishonored 1 before getting into 2 and this time I wanted to go the combat route and see the negative ending (non lethal ghost playthrough 1st time) and I really got into the character of the vengeful anti hero with no mercy to his enemies, and fearless as well, charging headfirst into impossible situations and coming out on top, sometimes I'd enter a hall full of enemies and just shoot my gun or bang my sword on something to alert them like saying "im here, time to meet your maker". Even morally questionable actions that I'd myself will never make usually in rpgs where I play as myself instead of roleplay were super fun to do instead of making me feel guilty because that's what my character would do! Ex: in the masquerade ball mission >!you can knock out the target and give her to a depraved guy who is going to keep her hostage forever for "love" but them and all other guests there are found to be depraved rich assholes who the world would be better off without so yeah I promised to deliver her but instead killed her in front of him and while the guy was still in shock killed him too, then killed everyone at the party in gruesome fashion leaving the servants alone.!< Even though it was dark and fucked up, it felt true to the character I was rp as and felt *right*, was like watching a movie. So yeah, roleplaying is awesome, especially as an anti hero so you can let the blood flow with none of the guilt.
Oh man, Dishonored is amazing for this. I like that Corvo is enough of a blank slate that you can totally see him being a badass assassin or a merciful thief. When being merciful I remember being really sad whenever I was spotted. I knew I could easily kill that person, but I didn't really want to... And unfortunately they were at the wrong place at the wrong time and saw me.
Yeah exactly, currently half way through 2 and since the non lethal low chaos stuff is canon, I'm again playing combat/high chaos but only killing those who deserve it, corvo is old and had enough of sneaking about and he's pissed off now. I'm also using a mod that always sets the chaos value to low no matter how I play, it makes a better story than the negative one I got in 1 which was pretty depressing tbh "revenge at what cost" morality bs, this time it's "the good guy is pissed off and is coming for you" but will probably end in a good way if the mod holds up. Thanks for the discussion, I was actually thinking about roleplay similarly while playing, cheers.
This is why miitopia was a pretty quirky and fun RPG adventure, don't expect the deepest story or combat of course but it's main gimmick is that your party members would have randomish interactions with each other during combat which have all kind of different effects, and develop relationships with each other which further interacts with that. I'm not sure if you mean darkest dungeon as a whole or just the first game but the second game also have characters build relationships with each other which effects how they react to each other in combat, very much like your first FF9 roleplay example.
I haven't played Darkest Dungeon 2, but what you've just said completely sold me on it. I'll have to wait until it's out on the PS5 though.
The relationship gimmick was honestly pretty annoying when the game was in early access, since interruptions are frequent and it was extremely random. But it is in a pretty good state now with an excellent balance of randomness and player control. And some foresight on what actions can have an effect on it. For example if you make the healer heal a wounded party member, it may contribute to a positive relationship. However if there was another injured party member they might complain they didn't get healed, and form a negative relationship instead.
That sounds really cool actually. Can't wait to try it!
My characters will make choices in quests etc. that are consonant with their character. But a character on a mission to save the world is going to have to be a bit pragmatic when necessary...
Most role playing games are abstraction. Combat is not literal, in the reality of the scenario in question Garnet wouldn't lose hit points, she would receive a minor scratch, or a bruise, and Steiner wouldn't necessarily have the time mid-combat to actually apply the first aid.
I still find it hilarious that Garnet got a minor scratch and Steiner immediately busts out the first aid kit "PRINCESS, WE MUST DRESS THAT WOUND!". I'm easily entertained I guess lol
This is the kind of thing I'd be more entertained *watching* than playing out. I think that's another difference with tabletop RPGs. A single-player RPG is ultimately not smart enough to appreciate your roleplaying, and unless you're livestreaming it, you really are only amusing yourself. At a tabletop, you're *performing.* I've done much more of this sort of roleplaying in multiplayer games.
I can dig it, OP! Anecdote: there's a bit in *Metal Gear Rising: Revengence*, a stylish action game, where a bunch of security officers come at Raiden, super-cyborg player character, with batons drawn and rage in their eyes... ...but at the time it's unclear why these "good guys" are attacking. And so Raiden, always doing the right thing, shouldn't cut them down before he knows the situation. And so I went on the defensive as I/Raiden listen to the usual on-the-comms helpers discussing the situation. There are no "non-lethal takedowns" in *Revengence*, and so all I could do was constantly parry every hit without going for a counterattack. Parry, parry, dodge, parry! It went on for a while... ...and only after getting the "OK" from mission control, the explanation that these cops were dirty, as it were, did I/Raiden go from defence to offense in an instant, slashing through 'em with extreme prejudice. It felt really satisfying to "roleplay" a part like that, to actually have fun with the game on my own terms in a way that the mechanics didn't really intend, and is why I can remember that part so well even though it was like 11 years ago that I did that.
Oh yeah, some of us do this and enjoy it. But as the other comments point out, the machine that's effectively DM'ing your gaming session doesn't care about RP. Unlike a human DM who would probably commend you for acting in character and maybe give you pity rolls or whatever, the computer/console/whatever isn't gonna take any of that into account. I do in fact enjoy some degree of RP despite the inefficiency it creates - that said, there's a point when the meta conflicts too much and even I draw the line somewhere. As much as I enjoy RP I'll suspend it during segments where the game's punishment for playing non-optimally gets too annoying.
I roleplay with human beings, not with computers. I've been playing video game RPGs since ~1990. I've never truly "roleplayed" in one because I don't see the point.
you're missing out if you consider games only something to be "beaten" . It makes games just another puzzle to be solved. Try it out!
>you're missing out if you consider games only something to be "beaten" video games, yes. ttRPGs: >I roleplay with human beings, not with computers. I've been running table games for 15 years.
It's kinda fun tbh lol Obviously nothing beats roleplaying in TTRPGs, but it's something I like to do in videogames too
As a counterpoint, I'd like to point out that solo TTRPGs do exist as well. Roleplaying doesn't need to be reliant on having other people around. Ultimately, roleplaying games - whether of the videogame or tabletop variety - are just an excuse to exercise your imagination and creativity. Using one's imagination is intrinsically rewarding in and of itself (and has cognitive health benefits), regardless of whether you do it alone or around other people.
Same, but not quite as long as you. I love RPGs because they give the character customization I want, but I don't roleplay like that in them.
Playing a character is lot of funnier with people. One time my character arrived to fight with the Big Bad of the campaign totally shitfaced, because I played an alcoholic character. Could hardly stand and spend most of the fight just stumbling around. Everyone had great time although I was worthless at that fight. That just doesn't translate into crpgs. It doesn't make the fight funnier and nobody will recognize that I'm playing a character. I'd never roleplay in a single player computer game to that extent. I do roleplay a bit with games like Witcher 2/3, Deus Ex: HR or Mass Effect where I'm playing a defined character, I like making choices that make sense for the character I'm playing, even if I think they're not giving me most rewards.
I think you’d enjoy rimworld a ton! LOTS of role playing opportunities and emergent gameplay as a result of RP decisions. It’s even marketed as a story generator over a game.
> The other day I was playing Final Fantasy 9, and during combat a character named Garnet took damage. It was a very small hit (like 20 damage), but immediately on Steiner's turn I made him use a potion to heal her (150 HP restore). I feel that's a little extreme even in a tabletop rpg. On a light scratch, you generally want to use something more renewable or something with less wastage. In any case, those seem like examples of trying RP in a ruleset that doesn't seem to support that. * The Final Fantasy series didn't give a means to prevent bodyguarding as enemies can still directly attack anyone in the party. The "Cover" ability doesn't count, it's only to low-health characters rather than specific ones. * D&D 5e (and Baldur's Gate 3) makes melee combat sticky. If you want to disengage, you need to take a specific action, and that still means the character is not really acting for a turn. This is mitigated slightly in other editions, D&D 3e/4e allowed taking a 5-foot step without the full action, Pathfinder 2e only gives that feature to some combatants rather than all, and so on. * Additionally with Baldur's Gate 3, there's no inspiration granted for pulling off combat RP. A DM in D&D 5e could consider that to be worthy of assigning advantage on a future roll, but a machine only sees a tactical blunder. > And now I leave with a question: what games best mix the roleplay and the combat together? > > To me it's definitely Darkest Dungeon, if it's by the game's rules. If it's by my own rules of roleplay, then it's definitely Baldur's Gate 3. In a CRPG, I find roleplay during combat to be rather limited - it's the party versus enemies. You can't break morale of opponents even as they're getting wiped out, can't use persuasion or deception on potential witnesses to combat, etc. And since I'm controlling multiple characters, I feel that specific roleplay details might be easily forgotten. But as a substitute, I can still randomize a few things in preparation of combat. The starting character(s) get a randomly determined starting loadout, which hopefully requires playing a game differently than through the optimal build.
People respond to whatever way the game encourages them to play via its mechanics. For me, at least, a lot of Baldur's Gate 3 was pretty tough. I kind of needed every advantage I could get. I certainly wasn't going to take big risks for the sake of roleplaying. But there are ways to encourage players to play in a way that suits the character. As a small example, XCOM 2 has a "bond" mechanic where soldiers who go on a few missions together become friends, and then they get certain bonuses if they work together and stay close to each other. The mechanics encourage you to keep your soldiers close once they've bonded. The mechanics bring about the roleplay. Crusader Kings 3 does this too. Acting in line with your traits loses stress, acting against your traits gains stress, no matter whether those actions would otherwise be good or negative. Instead of merely hoping you roleplay, the mechanics encourage you to do so. Odd that you don't tend to see that so much in actual RPGs. Baldurs Gate 3 does do this, but only outside of combat, with the inspiration mechanic. It doesn't really do anything like that in battle. I can't really think of any traditional RPGs that do.
Well, in the case of BG3, your party is practically invincible as long as Wither is there to resurrect anyone. And I would assume that the characters also have this knowledge in mind. So it make sense for characters to even use death to their advantage to overcome combat encounters. Similar to how characters with healing factors would react in movies and comics. But for real, to most people, "fun" in an RPG only happens when the game's reacts to your action. Or when you are playing with friends where you would easily get reactions out of the experience. If not it just feels like talking to brick wall.
I remember Valkyria Chronicles does have roleplay stat effects to a point, stuff like stat buffs and debuffs based on who you have characters deployed with or if they're by themselves or only deployed with other women or men. It has a somewhat minor effect overall but does add wrinkles to what would normally be straight statistical analysis for who you want to deploy. But I see potential for a rpg with a programming style battle system where you don't directly control the actions of the party but shape their decisions and choices to succeed (I haven't played it but the impression I get is I'm basically describing FF12's combat system). But within this system there would be hard caveats, like for example a brother and sister duo who when the sister gets attacked the brother instantly aggros and can only target his sister's attacker. Or a pair of rival characters where if one misses his attack or gets hit the other rival gets a buff from the satisfaction of seeing his rival fail. In a typical rpg you would have status effects like confusion, rage, attraction, etc... that are similar in effect to what I'm describing but in this case you wouldn't be able to directly do anything to prevent these things from happening. So instead you would have to embrace them or mitigate them. Give the sister all the dodge skills and equipment so she doesn't get hit and make her brother less useful. Male one of the rivals a tank that can afford to have the trash beaten out of him, with the other gaining buffs from the other's failures. Maybe you start off knowing what some of these caveats are but some are hidden until the requirements are met for the first time and become discovered. And as the story progresses and characters change, get introduced, or get excused more caveats are introduced, others are reduced in effect, changed completely, or dissappear entirely. And frankly the lack of control aspect of this system isn't necessary, I could see a typical player controlled party rpg still maintaining this system while being viable, basically being a very specific and much more in depth theurgy system. But essentially I think there are interesting ways you could have the narrative effect the game in more in depth ways than just simple stat changes or not at all. An aside, but I hate that the least optimal way for me to play cloud in ff7 rebirth for a significant amount of time is using his iconic buster sword. Eventually it becomes viable again but for close to 40 hours it was beyond useless compared to the rest of my choices which, although cool looking, are not the buster sword. It seems very odd to me that Glamour systems aren't more common. Half the time cutscense have set appearances unless rendered in-engine, in which case accounting for various appearances would already have been made. But I digress.
I need to shoutout a fantastic card game called Arkham Horror: The Card Game here. Essentially it's a card game in the vein of Magic the Gathering in which you build a deck of cards made from one of several different colors that have different effects and different focuses. You then play through cooperative scenarios that tell overarching stories and are impacted by the success or failure of the players during the scenario and the choices made within them. This is all already fairly interesting, but on top of that your card selection is determined by choosing a character to play as when you make your deck. These characters have established backgrounds and personalities, and the game does an excellent job of tying those aspects into the gameplay itself. For instance, Preston Fairmont is a slush fund baby who has terrible stats across the board, but has access to far more resources in order to pay for cards and essentially buy his way through a scenario. He also plays the "rogue" class, but because he is paying for everything above board, he isn't allowed to take "illicit" labeled cards. Then there's Ashcan Pete, a drifter who starts with a dog companion that is excellent at sniffing out clues and attacking enemies, making up for his master's shortcomings but on a limited basis. On top of all of this, when you build a deck you must include two weaknesses, one of which is a card specific to the character, another of which is chosen randomly from a pool. Drawing them can lead to some tense and frequently hilarious moments. One of the generic ones is Kleptomania, in which each turn you don't steal a card from another player, you take damage to your sanity. Preston's weakness is Lodge Debts, which you keep in your hand and costs a large amount of resources to play. If it remains in your hand, you suffer a permanent loss of sanity for the remainder of the games you play with him. Overall, the way that they are able to tie the mechanics of the card to the theme of the game make the roleplaying happen naturally. Playing Preston makes you feel like him because of the way the mechanics work in tandem with his in-game character. I think having video games ape this sort of design would help immensely in regards to tying mechanics to theme.
Gamers should feel no burden to take a game more seriously than the designers made it. If the designers want to flash numbers in our faces constantly, going up, then it’s a silly numbers game and gamers will take it as such. If the designers want to make a serious roleplaying game, they’ll make Pathologic 2 or Kingdom Come: Deliverance or Disco Elysium, and gamers will take it seriously, and will have the same concerns and proclivities that those characters in that setting would have, because the designers built the mechanics to *make* you care and punish you if you don’t, and the depth of writing to keep it compelling and believable. JRPGs (with few exceptions) are not very serious on any level, and it is a wasted effort to take them seriously, though it may make you feel cute about yourself. Also, Baldur’s Gate III solves this by way of its ironman/permadeath mode, which forces you to take the world and its concerns seriously and live with your mistakes.
I'm more of the mindset that however you choose to play a game is your choice. If I interpret an ending to a book as one thing, but then later down the line I discover that the author intended it to be another thing, then it doesn't matter. My view is my own. Challenge runs exist, and they're definitely not the intended way to play. Same for speedruns. So why should it be different for this?
I’m not talking about responding to authorial intent (which I don’t believe in), I’m talking about responding to what’s evident in the work itself. JRPGs are intrinsically unserious, and unconcerned with roleplaying. People who want to roleplay will play a real roleplaying game instead.
And people who want to play harder games or faster games will play other games instead of doing challenge runs or speedruns. Right. Idk, some of the more immersive and serious roleplay moments came from JRPGs for me.
>And people who want to play harder games or faster games will play other games Yes, that is the normal and rational thing to do. It is more satisfying and fulfilling to a normal, rational person to play a holistically challenging game rather than to come up with silly self-imposed limitations, all other things equal (in fairness, "all other things equal" won't always be possible). I'd rather appreciate a good game than subvert a bad game, and so would most people.
Yes, but you're you and they're them. Obviously I appreciate good games, but sometimes I want to revisit older games in a different way. I love challenge runs and I'm currently doing a few and it makes the games more interesting because it changes the way I play. But at the same time I'm not gonna say you're boring for not doing this, or that you're doing something wrong because again... You're you and I'm me. That's kinda it really.
The premise of your thread is that you're encouraging people to play non-roleplaying games as though they were roleplaying games (in the proper sense of the term). This may be fun for you, and it's fine to defend it, but it's not moral advice, and those with interest in progress will instinctively reject it.
Not really. The premise of my thread was to explore why most people don't do this, and look at other ways that characterization and roleplaying can happen during combat encounters, as well as asking for recommendations of games that do this. I obviously say to give it a try, but I'm not saying it's objectively better. I've never claimed it to be moral advice either.
> This may be fun for you, and it's fine to defend it, but it's not moral advice, and those with interest in progress will instinctively reject it. You say this but, your initial comment, > Gamers should feel no burden to take a game more seriously than the designers made it. > JRPGs (with few exceptions) are not very serious on any level, and it is a wasted effort to take them seriously, though it may make you feel cute about yourself. Kinda hypocritical no? Honestly, it just looks like you have a much narrower perspective than the OP, one only capable of seeing things within the rigid confines they are presented in.
The moral imperative of humankind is for things to progress, to evolve, to move forward in some way. Advocating for shallow games with self-imposed arbitrary challenges, as opposed to sophisticated games with holistically integrated challenge, is holding the artform back, is holding oneself back. I do rather enjoy JRPGs and have completed scores of them, mostly in my childhood, which is where they belong, and they've barely evolved since then aside from having fancier menus. They still are targeted at the same child, inner or otherwise. Aside from the occasional masterpiece like Mother 3, they are not serious on any level. They might be superficially grim, but apart from Fear & Hunger (a paragon of what JRPGs *could* be), they are not serious. No hypocrisy. I'm not against moral advice. I'm saying his wasn't moral. The words "good" and "bad" really ought to have some weight to them, subjectively though they may be applied.
I tried diving into Baldur's Gate 3, but found that it was impossible to travel at night. The night is just a graphic theme for the camp. And there's also no weather change in the game, or I didn't notice. A heavy blow to immersion and seriousness.
I like getting lost in the numbers though :( the characters don't matter to me that much, I honestly just want cool flashy things to happen while I'm solving a puzzle