Medieval RPG with no magic

[wulf3n]

It comes down to how the game actually plays and the ability to craft your character, and in this Mass Effect is very limited. You are generally shoe-horned into one of two morality paths (mixing it up is punished by locking you out of important choices) and the gameplay is pretty stripped-down 3rd person shooter.

RPG extends to more than just morality paths/decisions. The first Mass Effect had a complex (enough) skill tree that allowed the creation of distinct character builds within each class. The later Mass Effects not so much.

To me that's the difference between being an RPG and having RPG elements. In an RPG "leveling" allows the creation of a unique build, In a game with RPG elements "leveling" just allows you to choose the path taken to the same build everyone gets.

 

[AntiChri5]

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.

Depends on how you define or prioritize features in an RPG. I'd actually defend Mount & Blade as being more RPG than most games that come from the genre. More so than stats, skill based vs skill-less combat and such - Mount & Blade gives player agency - which I value highly. It might not have deeply compelling story lines, but you're free to explore the world and let the stories be about how the game reacts to you. Do you sack the city for money or fight in tournaments, raise your banner for one of several kings or attempt to become king yourself? The world lets you do what you want and responds in kind.

I have to agree with this.

There are many different definitions of an RPG, but the only one that makes sense to me are based on role playing, not just "Hurrrr you can level up!".

A game that lets you create, customise and define a character is an RPG. Warband is one of the best out there for pure player freedom. You can be anything from a wandering merchant to a bandit to an emperor. Whereas something like Mass Effect is more focused on presenting a fairly defined story with some choices. Still an RPG, just a different kind.

 

[AntiChri5]

It comes down to how the game actually plays and the ability to craft your character, and in this Mass Effect is very limited. You are generally shoe-horned into one of two morality paths (mixing it up is punished by locking you out of important choices) and the gameplay is pretty stripped-down 3rd person shooter.

RPG extends to more than just morality paths/decisions. The first Mass Effect had a complex (enough) skill tree that allowed the creation of distinct character builds within each class. The later Mass Effects not so much.

To me that's the difference between being an RPG and having RPG elements. In an RPG "leveling" allows the creation of a unique build, In a game with RPG elements "leveling" just allows you to choose the path taken to the same build everyone gets.

The first ME had complexity, but very little depth. And you got too many level up points. By grinding enough, you could get almost every skill maxed, so having the same build as someone with the same class is more or less a matter of time. Leaving the only variation the bonuis skill and specialization you chose.

ME2 introduced branching paths at the end of skills, but didn't really go anywhere with it. In ME3 however they took it much further. Now, abilities branch half way, meaning my Adept can be very different from yours.

 

[gamer_parent]

my takeaway from this thread:

1. go get mount and blade: warband. Apparently, it's awesome.
2. the term "RPG" in video games has almost no meaning and is devoid of discussion value.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Only one I can really think of is Haven and Hearth.

But really, the only medieval thing about it is that there is no electricity. However, magic's a very minor thing. You use it to catch dreams, which can make checkpoints. Which you'll probably never have to do.

That's the only thing it does. There are some combat abilities have build tension, strategy and defense (the combat system is a complicated mess, making combat a completely minor thing too) but you do not actually fight with magic, in any way.

Heaven and Heart = just barely magic.

Also, here how I define and RPG.
If you have an agency over your character, and you explore a vast land and slowly become stronger and more familiar with the area, along with huge amounts of customisation (Parasite Eve, Terraria, Dragon Quest) it's an RPG.

If you get XPs for shooting da person in the other coloured clothes then get better guns, no. It's definetely not an RPG.

 

[Gennadios]

Darklands. That game is ancient (1992), the interface is surprisingly user friendly and has amazing mouse support(for the time!) but it's also a hot mess of no hand holding and characters starting out underpowered. The first 10 hours will be spent either staying in the safe confines of town or running away from brigands.

It does have two forms of "magic," one is praying to historical saints, but getting enough reputation to even be allowed into churches to research individual saints is a pain, and it's also really impractical to regain divine favor so prayer is used sparingly.

There's also alchemy to make exploding potions and such, but there are tons of ingredients, they are a pain to gather, and the system is poorly documented so it might as well not exist!

Bottom line, if you hate yourself and are interested in playing a game where most campaigns just end with your party growing too old to carry a sword before they even get the skill and gear to clear so much as a single dungeon, this is the game for you.

Available on GoG.

 

[Jason Rayes]

Darklands. That game is ancient (1992), the interface is surprisingly user friendly and has amazing mouse support(for the time!) but it's also a hot mess of no hand holding and characters starting out underpowered. The first 10 hours will be spent either staying in the safe confines of town or running away from brigands.

It does have two forms of "magic," one is praying to historical saints, but getting enough reputation to even be allowed into churches to research individual saints is a pain, and it's also really impractical to regain divine favor so prayer is used sparingly.

There's also alchemy to make exploding potions and such, but there are tons of ingredients, they are a pain to gather, and the system is poorly documented so it might as well not exist!

Bottom line, if you hate yourself and are interested in playing a game where most campaigns just end with your party growing too old to carry a sword before they even get the skill and gear to clear so much as a single dungeon, this is the game for you.

Available on GoG.

This is the game I was going to mention, outside the power of the Saints (Fickle at best) and alchemy (Also pretty unreliable) magic is usually only hinted ay and whispered about. If you go far enough of the beaten path you will find elements of the supernatural in the enemies you encounter, but to say too much more about that would be spoilerific. If you can put up with the dated graphics and, as mentioned, the brutally punishing difficulty, Darklands creates a really great medieval atmosphere.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

Name RPGs that give you more role-playing and player agency over your character than Mass Effect, there's not many at all. One mission of Mass Effect has more role-playing than the entirety of the Final Fantasy series (which are just merely adventure games with a tacked-on combat system). A simple test is to remove a game's combat to see whether it's an RPG or not. You get 2 entirely different experiences if you remove the combat from Mass Effect vs removing combat from a Final Fantasy game. RPGs don't even require combat.

Just because an RPG has shooting for it's combat system doesn't have any impact on whether it's an RPG or not. RPGs can have combat systems purely based on stats or they can be action RPGs like Mass Effect, one is not more RPG than the other. RPGs started out as action RPGs before pen and paper RPGs. Do you not realize why pen and paper RPGs don't allow player skill to be involved? It's due to the medium itself not allowing for player skill. You can't bring a sword to a DnD session, swing it awesomely, and tell the DM you just landed a crit. RPGs don't have to be shackled by the limitations of the pen and paper medium.

So pretty much every game out there is an RPG then? You play roles in them, after all! No, contrary to popular belief, RPGs aren't defined by playing a role, as you can play a role in almost any game. It comes down to how the game actually plays and the ability to craft your character, and in this Mass Effect is very limited. You are generally shoe-horned into one of two morality paths (mixing it up is punished by locking you out of important choices) and the gameplay is pretty stripped-down 3rd person shooter. Don't get me wrong, like San Andreas, Mass Effect has RPG elements, but to call it primarily an RPG? No way.

And this is coming from someone who loved the trilogy, including the ending. However, I'm just calling it how it is.

There's a HUGE difference between PLAYING as a character and ROLE-PLAYING as a character, and there's very few games that let you role-play as a character. When you only have a say over what your character does in combat (pretty much every game), the game is not an RPG. If everything he/she says and does outside of combat is scripted and predetermined, you are not role-playing. How is ME a stripped down TPS? Because it's a better TPS than quite a few straight-up TPSs like say Max Payne 3. So what if you are locked out from selecting certain options for a very very select few choices in Mass Effect, it's not going to stop me from molding my Shepard into whatever character I want him/her to be. I created my own character arc for Shepard in ME3, what other games even let you do something like that.

RPGs are about player agency:

Depends on how you define or prioritize features in an RPG. I'd actually defend Mount & Blade as being more RPG than most games that come from the genre. More so than stats, skill based vs skill-less combat and such - Mount & Blade gives player agency - which I value highly.

 

[Gennadios]

How is ME a stripped down TPS? Because it's a better TPS than quite a few straight-up TPSs like say Max Payne 3. So what if you are locked out from selecting certain options for a very very select few choices in Mass Effect, it's not going to stop me from molding my Shepard into whatever character I want him/her to be.

Part of the problem is that it becomes very, very obvious when the writers are dead set on having the game play out a certain way. Both Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 endgames left me feeling as if there could or should have been 2-5 renegade/paragon interrupts during final conversations that never materialized.

The budgetary constraints of video endgame sequences and full voiceovers are partly responsible for the end product feeling like it fell far too short of being an RPG, but poor quality writing also played a part. The Walking Dead adventure game had some of the same issues but the writing was far better and that helped mask alot of the linearity.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

You've already destroyed your own argument here. Tell me how exactly do you role-play as Shepard? Hmm? You have two morality choices in certain conversations and.. that's about it. Everything else specifically IS combat based. The different classes just change how you fight. So, let's do your own little experiment. Let's take away the combat from Mass Effect. What do you have? A Walking Dead-esque game where you can choose what Shepard will say, and very occasionally make some choice that has an affect later on.

Shepard's is a great story, but despite your claims, it isn't very role-play-esque outside of the combat differences classes bring. It's a third person shooter with some RPG elements and mechanics thrown in, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand this.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Part of the problem is that it becomes very, very obvious when the writers are dead set on having the game play out a certain way. Both Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 endgames left me feeling as if there could or should have been 2-5 renegade/paragon interrupts during final conversations that never materialized.

The budgetary constraints of video endgame sequences and full voiceovers are partly responsible for the end product feeling like it fell far too short of being an RPG, but poor quality writing also played a part. The Walking Dead adventure game had some of the same issues but the writing was far better and that helped mask alot of the linearity.

But you get the same thing with even pen and paper games, the DM is leading you down a set story path, things can change along the way but the ending is pretty much set for the most part.

I don't know about Dragon Age 2 but what interrupts did you want ME3 at the end? Bioware didn't include the "fuck you" interrupt (until the updated ending) because it was a retarded choice, and I loved that they basically gave everyone the middle finger who wanted that choice.

I'm actually playing through the Walking Dead game now (on episode 4) and I like it but it feels a lot more linear than Mass Effect. Yeah, you do get lead down path in Mass Effect but you have so many major decisions along the way that really define your experience even though they don't impact the end the way you would've liked. Deciding the fates of races and deciding whether certain characters live or die or how they die makes Mass Effect. My friends and I talked about that Krogan mission in ME3 for hours. The Walking Dead just doesn't seem to have those major "side" decisions like Mass Effect so to me, the linearity is a lot more obvious because I already know I'm being lead down a set path while having very little say over the "small picture" stuff (which is the best way I can put it).

 

[Gennadios]

Part of the problem is that it becomes very, very obvious when the writers are dead set on having the game play out a certain way. Both Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 endgames left me feeling as if there could or should have been 2-5 renegade/paragon interrupts during final conversations that never materialized.

The budgetary constraints of video endgame sequences and full voiceovers are partly responsible for the end product feeling like it fell far too short of being an RPG, but poor quality writing also played a part. The Walking Dead adventure game had some of the same issues but the writing was far better and that helped mask alot of the linearity.

But you get the same thing with even pen and paper games, the DM is leading you down a set story path, things can change along the way but the ending is pretty much set for the most part.

Well, D&D modules have a set of "win" conditions, the foozle has to die, the cult has to be dismantled, the rightful king restored, what have you, and the DM does lead the player to that point.

Here's where the player agency comes in. Every module is designed to end on those conditions without any conditions on the fate of the player characters. Some characters may die along the way, some characters may ascend the throne and be "retired" and unplayable, but for everyone else, the players just save those character sheets and reuse them for the next module or come up with whichever character fate they choose.

Therein lies the difference, Bioware games aren't simply a module for the player to work through on their own terms, they are in effect the story of the person the player is playing. Bioware writers can ultimately do with the main character what they may, and if the person playing gets too invested and then runs across a situation where they don't agree with the logic of the writer, or the character does something that the player doesn't agree with, tough sh*t.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You've already destroyed your own argument here. Tell me how exactly do you role-play as Shepard? Hmm? You have two morality choices in certain conversations and.. that's about it. Everything else specifically IS combat based. The different classes just change how you fight. So, let's do your own little experiment. Let's take away the combat from Mass Effect. What do you have? A Walking Dead-esque game where you can choose what Shepard will say, and very occasionally make some choice that has an affect later on.

Shepard's is a great story, but despite your claims, it isn't very role-play-esque outside of the combat differences classes bring. It's a third person shooter with some RPG elements and mechanics thrown in, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand this.

Lol, no I didn't. Over the thousands of conversation options you make, you create your own Shepard. Yes, one dialog choice alone doesn't change a character much, but stack a thousand of those choices and you have a unique Shepard. The dialog choices are more than just 2 choices as well each time. Just like in real life, one thing you say doesn't make you into the person/character you are, it's the millions of things you say and do that make you into yourself. My Shepard had her own character arc in ME3 that I totally did by myself, how many games let you do that? The reason people were so upset over ME3's ending was because they felt their Shepard wouldn't have done one of the 3 choices because it was their Shepard that they molded over 3 games. If ME3's ending was in a game like Halo, Gears, Uncharted, etc., there wouldn't be nearly the outrage.

The Walking Dead gives you dialog choice that really doesn't change Lee much, he feels like the same person for almost every dialog choice in the game.

RPGs don't even need combat. How is Mass Effect a TPS when you spend more time role-playing then shooting? If anything, it's an RPG with TPS elements. I don't see how it's so difficult to understand the basics of an RPG.

Here's the definition of an RPG:
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.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well, D&D modules have a set of "win" conditions, the foozle has to die, the cult has to be dismantled, the rightful king restored, what have you, and the DM does lead the player to that point.

Here's where the player agency comes in. Every module is designed to end on those conditions without any conditions on the fate of the player characters. Some characters may die along the way, some characters may ascend the throne and be "retired" and unplayable, but for everyone else, the players just save those character sheets and reuse them for the next module or come up with whichever character fate they choose.

Therein lies the difference, Bioware games aren't simply a module for the player to work through on their own terms, they are in effect the story of the person the player is playing. Bioware writers can ultimately do with the main character what they may, and if the person playing gets too invested and then runs across a situation where they don't agree with the logic of the writer, or the character does something that the player doesn't agree with, tough sh*t.

That's kinda (due to budget and time reasons) the limitation of the video game medium just like pen and paper RPGs don't let player skill come into play because that's a limitation of that medium.

 

[AntiChri5]

snip

You've already destroyed your own argument here. Tell me how exactly do you role-play as Shepard? Hmm? You have two morality choices in certain conversations and.. that's about it. Everything else specifically IS combat based. The different classes just change how you fight. So, let's do your own little experiment. Let's take away the combat from Mass Effect. What do you have? A Walking Dead-esque game where you can choose what Shepard will say, and very occasionally make some choice that has an affect later on.

Shepard's is a great story, but despite your claims, it isn't very role-play-esque outside of the combat differences classes bring. It's a third person shooter with some RPG elements and mechanics thrown in, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand this.

Choosing between Renegade or Paragon isn't interesting in terms of roleplaying. But the only game in the series where you are punished for mixing it up is ME2 and even then there is a way around that. Choosing whether you will be Renegade or Paragon in this situation is where you roleplay. As well as how you interact with the different characters (who you romance, whether you choose not to romance anyone, how you treat EDI, whether you encourage Javik to let go of the past). Then there is the look of the character you have created, face, clothes, armour style and colours. And then we have class and which powers you use, which weapons you use (fantastic variety there) and such. And also which interrupts you go paragon and which you go renegade, which interrupts you ignore (my most renagade Shepard takes no Renegade interrupts). Which persuasion options you use and which you ignore (ever deliberately not used persuasion in your first conversation with Grunt? Very interesting. Fits some of my characters better then a successful persuasion).

 

[TheMagicLemur]

I want a painfully realistic non-magic medieval RPG where 9 times out of 10 your character does something to get him/her accused of witchcraft and gets burned alive.

The other 1 time they die from dysentery.

 

[Jason Rayes]

Shepard's is a great story, but despite your claims, it isn't very role-play-esque outside of the combat differences classes bring. It's a third person shooter with some RPG elements and mechanics thrown in, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand this.

This became progressively true with each successive game. I LOVE Mass Effect, and the Normandy and its crew are something I will never forget, but especially after the 1st game, it was a shooter with an amazing story, not what I would consider an RPG.

 

[AntiChri5]

Right. A shooter where you can easily win on the hardest difficulty without firing a shot.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

The fact that somebody mentioned Dark Souls in a thread about RPG shows just how saturated into meaninglessness the term "rpg" has been.

This is true. Apparently, any game where you can play a role or a character that plays some kind of role is an RPG, regardless of any special game mechanics or rules. Now that I've experienced it first hand, it is an argument that I aim to never have on the internet again. It's too risky to one's sanity.

Sorry to the OP, by the way. For the thread derail, and all. Anyway, on topic, I do actually remember reading about an upcoming MMO that is set in the middle ages and has no (or extremely little) magic involved. I can't remember the name though, unfortunately. If I remember, I'll get back at the thread.