Medieval RPG with no magic

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

First of all, don't confuse RPGs with JRPGs - they have a similar name but are very different genres. A game being a role playing game isn't determined by the fact that you play a role (you do that in almost every game regardless of genre), but by how much of stats determine the outcomes of actions as opposed to player skill. For example, the purest examples of RPG I can think of are Fallout 1 & 2, Baldur's Gate series, Planescape Torment and Neverwinter Nights series.

Also, this isn't a thread about the definition of RPG. If you want to discuss it, start a new thread. Don't derail this one.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. JRPGs are considered RPGs by many people even though they aren't RPGs. There's many WRPGs that I don't consider RPGs either. Playing as Mario in Mario or Batman in the Batman Arkham series is just that, playing as them. You role-play as Shepard in Mass Effect, you just don't play as him/her.

RPGs existed before pen and paper RPGs and player skill was involved in the games. It's only that the pen and paper medium doesn't allow for player skill is why people think "pure" RPGs don't involve player skill. There is no such thing as a "pure" RPG because RPGs can be so many different things from turn-based battles to shooters to hack and slashers to even a platformer. RPGs just require a focus on the role-playing and everything else can be whatever the fuck it wants to be. DnD isn't an RPG because the combat and all the stats, it's due to it having role-playing. If you made DnD into a just fighting through dungeons, it would cease being an RPG.

Sorry but when someone says the Mass Effect games are shooters with RPG elements it pisses me off because they couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Doom972]

First of all, don't confuse RPGs with JRPGs - they have a similar name but are very different genres. A game being a role playing game isn't determined by the fact that you play a role (you do that in almost every game regardless of genre), but by how much of stats determine the outcomes of actions as opposed to player skill. For example, the purest examples of RPG I can think of are Fallout 1 & 2, Baldur's Gate series, Planescape Torment and Neverwinter Nights series.

Also, this isn't a thread about the definition of RPG. If you want to discuss it, start a new thread. Don't derail this one.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. JRPGs are considered RPGs by many people even though they aren't RPGs. There's many WRPGs that I don't consider RPGs either. Playing as Mario in Mario or Batman in the Batman Arkham series is just that, playing as them. You role-play as Shepard in Mass Effect, you just don't play as him/her.

RPGs existed before pen and paper RPGs and player skill was involved in the games. It's only that the pen and paper medium doesn't allow for player skill is why people think "pure" RPGs don't involve player skill. There is no such thing as a "pure" RPG because RPGs can be so many different things from turn-based battles to shooters to hack and slashers to even a platformer. RPGs just require a focus on the role-playing and everything else can be whatever the fuck it wants to be. DnD isn't an RPG because the combat and all the stats, it's due to it having role-playing. If you made DnD into a just fighting through dungeons, it would cease being an RPG.

Sorry but when someone says the Mass Effect games are shooters with RPG elements it pisses me off because they couldn't be more wrong.

Look, I like the ME games just as much as you, if not more, but you probably haven't played many RPGs if you think that they are an example of what RPG is like or supposed to be. The first one actually passes for an action RPG, but the others not so much. If you want to discuss it, start another thread.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

AHA! Found it. Gloria Victis is the MMO I spoke about before. Google it, and you should find their website. You may, or may not, find it interesting. It looks authentic enough.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Look, I like the ME games just as much as you, if not more, but you probably haven't played many RPGs if you think that they are an example of what RPG is like or supposed to be. The first one actually passes for an action RPG, but the others not so much. If you want to discuss it, start another thread.

You have literally nothing backing up your claim for what an RPG is, I do. Look at the history of RPGs, they existed before pen and paper games and player skill was involved. It's just ignorant to think "pure" RPGs are what pen and paper RPGs are. And, I play Pathfinder weekly, I know what an RPG is; all the Mass Effect games are RPGs through and through. You're putting why too much importance onto combat and stats, neither are actual requirements to be an RPG.

 

[Doom972]

AHA! Found it. Gloria Victis is the MMO I spoke about before. Google it, and you should find their website. You may, or may not, find it interesting. It looks authentic enough.

Thanks, but unfortunately I'm not into MMOs.

Look, I like the ME games just as much as you, if not more, but you probably haven't played many RPGs if you think that they are an example of what RPG is like or supposed to be. The first one actually passes for an action RPG, but the others not so much. If you want to discuss it, start another thread.

You have literally nothing backing up your claim for what an RPG is, I do. Look at the history of RPGs, they existed before pen and paper games and player skill was involved. It's just ignorant to think "pure" RPGs are what pen and paper RPGs are. And, I play Pathfinder weekly, I know what an RPG is; all the Mass Effect games are RPGs through and through. You're putting why too much importance onto combat and stats, neither are actual requirements to be an RPG.

Pure RPGs are RPGs in which player skill (not to be confused with the player's ability to think) matters as little as possible, while character skill matters as much as possible. If I have to explain why, this discussion is pointless. This derail has gone long enough and I'm ending it.

 

[Hargrimm]

Pure RPGs are RPGs in which player skill (not to be confused with the player's ability to think) matters as little as possible, while character skill matters as much as possible. If I have to explain why, this discussion is pointless. This derail has gone long enough and I'm ending it.

Your ignorance shows through yet again. Where does it state anywhere that player skill shouldn't matter in an RPG? RPGs don't change at all when going from one medium to another. Here's the definition of an RPG and it carries over to any medium whether live-action, pen and paper, or video game:

A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

Where does it say you need stats, combat, or no player skill? RPGs have very little stipulation other than there must be role-playing. Just like shooters need to focus on shooting, platformers need to focus on platforming, etc. I don't know why people must make such simple concepts in something more than they were ever intended to be.

Because that definition is so broad it's useless. By that definition every game with some kind of protagonist is a role-playing game. If shooters, platformers, WRPGs, JRPGs, cRPGs, Beat-em ups, RTS, TBS, MMOs, etc. all count as RPGs then the term has no use.

 

[Isalan]

Titan Quest might scratch your itch. Its more of an isometric affair and its set in and around the ancient greek time period. There's some magic, but you can go completely down the smacking people with objects of various sharpness route and still have a whale of a time. Some of the enemies are pretty magicky(?!) but by and large its your traditional hack and slash.

Never played the Mount and Blade series, though people seem to love it in here.

Lastly, Jade Empire might be worth a go. It's set in more of an ancient china style of setting, but it adheres to fighting styles very nicely. Again, there's still magic in the game, but as the player you can safely ignore it and just punch people while shouting "Hai!" and "Yah!" and so on and so forth. Plus, its just a really nice game as well. English version has John Cleese playing a character called Sir Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom the Magnificent Bastard and that alone is worth the price of admission.

To be honest, I'm kinda coming up blank here. Wish I could be more help.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

[Here's the definition of an RPG and it carries over to any medium whether live-action, pen and paper, or video game:

A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

Where does it say you need stats, combat, or no player skill? RPGs have very little stipulation other than there must be role-playing. Just like shooters need to focus on shooting, platformers need to focus on platforming, etc. I don't know why people must make such simple concepts in something more than they were ever intended to be.

Because that definition is so broad it's useless. By that definition every game with some kind of protagonist is a role-playing game. If shooters, platformers, WRPGs, JRPGs, cRPGs, Beat-em ups, RTS, TBS, MMOs, etc. all count as RPGs then the term has no use.

No, it's broad yet very few games would actually fall under it. What platformers, shooters, beat-em ups, etc. have a process of structured decision making (with regards to acting out a character's role) or character development?

 

[shrekfan246]

If shooters, platformers, WRPGs, JRPGs, cRPGs, Beat-em ups, RTS, TBS, MMOs, etc. all count as RPGs then the term has no use.

Not so much aiming at you as every post in this thread claiming that "real" RPGs have no player input for combat, but yours is just the one that sticks out -

The primary difference between Devil May Cry and The Witcher 2 is that the player is given an element of control over how the player character acts and reacts. The hack&slash combat doesn't make it an action game with RPG elements. If anything, "RPG elements" have become so diluted as to be useless in definitions, because it leads to such ridiculous claims as "real RPGs" requiring no player skill--which is hilarious, by the way, because even in the 'classics' like Baldur's Gate, you have to know what you're doing or else you're not going to get anywhere; If you just throw your party into combat and then do absolutely nothing, you're likely going to lose. Everything about the gameplay comes back to player skill, having direct control over a character changes none of that except for the timing and possible frequency of your clicking.

EDIT: Er, for why I quoted that post instead of any others as well:
Not all shooters/platformers/Beat-Em-Ups/Hack&Slash/RTS/TBS/MMOs are RPGs, but shooters/platformers/Beat-Em-Ups/Hack&Slash/RTS/TBS/MMOs can be RPGs.

 

[Doom972]

Thanks for the suggestions so far. Please keep them coming. Also, please don't derail the thread, as those definition of RPG debate comments are clogging it up way too much. I can't stop one unreasonable guy, but I think that the rest of you aren't unreasonable.

If you want something unconventional, might want to try the Guild 2. Its buggy, but the base guild 2 (not renaissance) holds well enough.

Renaissance has way more content, but way more unstable. The Guild 2 by itself shuns magic, has less stuff, but is relatively stable.

Looks interesting, but you kind of put me off there when you mentioned the bugs. I have played through some games that are considered buggy without any problems (like Alpha Protocol), so just how buggy are we talking about here?

 

[Itchi_da_killa]

Mount and Blade sounds like the type of game I have been looking for myself.

 

[gamer_parent]

the problem with all of this RPG talk is that what defines RPGs in video games is completely different from tabletop RPGs.

In tabletop games, RPGs are defined primarily by two things:

1. embodying a character
2. possessing narrative control/choice over the character or the story arc

In video games, RPGs seemed to be defined simply as having stats that you accrue and develop over time. It is in this sense that JRPGs are really for the most part not RPGs but really just lite strategic combat games with a ton of cut scenes.

This is not to say that some WRPGs don't fit the traditional definition, but it now lies on a spectrum. i.e. in most Bioware games, you generally have some limited control over the narrative. This is really a necessity due to the limitation of what games can do without having a human playing the GM

 

[JamesStone]

I tried the M&B demo and I have to say that it's really not what I have in mind. It's not much of an RPG.

As a veteran of Mount & Blade: Warband, putting in well over 1,000 hours on both single and multi player, I have to wonder why people are mentioning it. It's hardly an RPG. It has a few RPG mechanics, but really, that does not make it an RPG, anymore than Mass Effect or GTA: San Andreas are RPGs. Let's be reasonable here.

I haven't played Mount & Blade so I don't know if it's an RPG. GTA is definitely not.

However, the Mass Effect series is more of an RPG than 99% of RPGs out there, over half the fucking game is ROLE-PLAYING, how are the Mass Effects not RPGs? It doesn't make any sense. Most RPGs barely have any role-playing at all and Mass Effect is filled with it. People wouldn't know an RPG if they were playing it.

He was referring to GTA: San Andreas, which had RPG elements. Namely the developing of skills through repetition: The longer you drive - your driving skill increases, the more you shoot - that particular weapon skill increases, etc.

More than 99% of the games out there? Really? I get it when someone exaggerates to emphasize his point, but come on. Do I really have to name every RPG that's more of an RPG than Mass Effect? I don't really have the time for that.

The Mass Effect games (2&3 in particular) are considered shooters with RPG elements, because player skill matters more than character skill. In a pure RPG, you build a character, and use that character's abilities to win a battle. For example, in KOTOR when you want to shoot an enemy with your blaster rifle, you click on the enemy and your character shoots, with its damage/accuracy/rate of fire depending purely on stats until the enemy is dead or a new order is given - you don't aim and you don't click to shoot.

Bullshit. There's no such thing as a pure RPG. The only reason the old school RPGs even used that system was because they were adapted from Tabletop RPGs, which could not do anything other than that. A RPG is a game where you play a role. In that sense, Mass Effect is no less of a RPG than any other in the bussiness.

 

[AntiChri5]

Pure RPGs are RPGs in which player skill (not to be confused with the player's ability to think) matters as little as possible, while character skill matters as much as possible. If I have to explain why, this discussion is pointless. This derail has gone long enough and I'm ending it.

I have never seen an RPG where player skill didn't matter. Have you noticed how, like most other kinds of games, RPG's tend to have difficulty levels? If there was no player skill involved, not a single RPG would have different difficulty levels.

Properly building a character, knowing when to use what ability and being able to understand the mechanics of the system are skills, they just aren't twitchy reaction based skills.

If player skill played no part, sitting a 90 year old who has no idea what an RPG is and you at the same game should lead to the same result.