Poll: Would you play an RPG that hides stats from the player?

[Fniss]

Remove the stats and it ceases to be an RPG.

How do you figure?

RPG stands for "role-playing game." The purpose of the game is the story. Years of min/maxing DnD munchkins and video game stat-monkeys have socially created the idea that stats are what make an RPG. This idea has been grafted into the genre, but it still exists outside the core defintion of a "role-playing game."

A "role-playing game" is a game where the player PLAYS a ROLE in an unfolding story, and any system for determining pass/fail and limiting what the player can and can't do is sufficient to give the framework for playing a role in a story, whether it has stats or not.

So GTA and The Sims are now RPGs? Weird that.

Sorry, I've already proven this wrong on Page 1. Go read.

I your point is that RPGs is defined by having stats. So does Sims and GTA... In sims you assign personalities(stats) and your actions controls their different needs(other kind of hp bar). In GTA, all cars have different stats, you have life, different damage with different weapons. Your point being?

 

[Supertask]

I would play both, both have upsides and downsides. Though in a game that hides stats, it might serve to make the stats behind the scenes a bit fuzzy, so even someone who did get hold of the stats behind the scenes couldn't make a clear cut calculation. For example Sword A has the potential to do more damage than Sword B, but Sword A's damage is spread over a wider spectrum than Sword B, so it can also do less damage (at random) - maybe Sword B also gets a critical hit more often, but Sword A swings faster.

In fact this would be good even if you do reveal stats, since it means that any choice will not be clear cut, making the game more intuition and feeling than simply a boring calculation.

EDIT: Of course a potential downside of fuzzy stats is that the developers themselves will find it harder to calculate effectiveness, and thus harder to balance the game.

 

[skywolfblue]

Sure.

Although I'd rather they just get rid of the stats altogether.

Agree.

RPG's are suppose to be about talking to the characters, learning their stories, and acquiring spifftastic stuff that LOOKS cool. Stats just get in the way, making people go for ugly stuff simply because it's +1 damage. Sooner stats go away, the sooner people get to wear what they want to wear.

Well, this is why some games have separated clothing and armor, like Phantasy Star Portable 2.

I've never played that game, but I'm assuming it's similar to Transmorgify in WoW? Those are a good "best of both worlds" solution. Allowing stat lovers to have their stats while allowing those of us who care about appearance to choose what stuff we like best. I wonder why more single-player RPG's don't include this... Perhaps because it adds another layer of complexity.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Remove the stats and it ceases to be an RPG.

How do you figure?

RPG stands for "role-playing game." The purpose of the game is the story. Years of min/maxing DnD munchkins and video game stat-monkeys have socially created the idea that stats are what make an RPG. This idea has been grafted into the genre, but it still exists outside the core defintion of a "role-playing game."

A "role-playing game" is a game where the player PLAYS a ROLE in an unfolding story, and any system for determining pass/fail and limiting what the player can and can't do is sufficient to give the framework for playing a role in a story, whether it has stats or not.

So GTA and The Sims are now RPGs? Weird that.

Sorry, I've already proven this wrong on Page 1. Go read.

You proved nothing except that all of that is your own opinion. And here's mine...

First, what is "role-playing" exactly? Hit us up dictionary.com!

"role-play

verb (used with object)

1. to assume the attitudes, actions, discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction"

Nothing in there about stats, my friend.

To me, a role-playing game is a game whose primary feature is role-playing as defined above. While GTA and The Sims may, in a sense, feature role-playing, those are not their primary features. No, those are "sandbox mayhem" and "home building" respectively.

The industry definition of "RPG elements" is "stats, experience points, and levels," but that is a misnomer. Yes, I'm saying that the way that the industry definition is off and a role-playing game does not require stats in any way.

Again, just my opinion, just like everything else on this thread, including the "facts" that you "proved."

 

[Supah]

At least a "pro" mode or whatever where it is like that.

This guy might be on to something... kind of like Fallout New Vegas with the realism mode or w/e it was called, make it an option

If you wanted to take that a step further (those who played Diablo 2 will understand what I'm saying) Make two sets of online venues, one for normal players and one for those who turn off all stat tracking, kind of like normal and "hardcore" were separate for Diablo 2

 

[Sentox6]

The industry definition of "RPG elements" is "stats, experience points, and levels," but that is a misnomer. Yes, I'm saying that the way that the industry definition is off and a role-playing game does not require stats in any way.

That's the critical point though. "Misnomer" or not, that is the reality of the definition of "RPG" in a videogame context. Personally, I don't think the definition should change, either; to make it as broad as you're suggesting means nearly every video game in existence would necessarily become an RPG, rendering the label redundant. Essentially every video game with a protagonist is one where you assume a role.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Remove the stats and it ceases to be an RPG.

How do you figure?

RPG stands for "role-playing game." The purpose of the game is the story. Years of min/maxing DnD munchkins and video game stat-monkeys have socially created the idea that stats are what make an RPG. This idea has been grafted into the genre, but it still exists outside the core defintion of a "role-playing game."

A "role-playing game" is a game where the player PLAYS a ROLE in an unfolding story, and any system for determining pass/fail and limiting what the player can and can't do is sufficient to give the framework for playing a role in a story, whether it has stats or not.

So Mario is an RPG? Fantastic, fond memories of saving Peach in Mario 64.

No because you have no input in how the story plays out.

It's the difference between "acting out a role" in a story and "playing a role" in the story. In role-playing, you can have an influence on what happens in terms of plot and characterization.

And yes, I just claimed that most JRPGs aren't truly role-playing games, which is true.

To say that most JRPG's aren't really RPG's is as silly as saying that most cars aren't really cars. I mean, did you notice the RPG in JRPG? It seems that the industry thinks that JRPG's are in fact, RPG's made in Japan or in the Japanese style. Being able to collect hidden characters or not and being able to customize your characters abilities both seem like role-play and game altering elements to me. I really could have left Yuffie standing in that field and that would have cut out an entire side quest.

However, for the fun of it, could you tell me what you think IS a true RPG?

I said MOST, though that may have been an exaggeration. Games like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VI, and Chrono Trigger ARE role-playing games because, like you demonstrated above, the player can affect the story.

How do I define RPG? Well, what is "role-playing" exactly? Hit us up dictionary.com!

"role-play

verb (used with object)

1. to assume the attitudes, actions, discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction"

To me, a role-playing game is a game whose primary feature is role-playing as defined above. While Mario 64 may, arguably, feature role-playing, that is not its primary feature. No, that would be "platforming."

The industry definition of "RPG elements" is "stats, experience points, and levels," but that is a misnomer. Yes, I'm saying that the way that the industry definition is off and a role-playing game does not require stats in any way.

Because of DnD and video games aping DnD tropes, stats have become very strongly associated with role-playing games, but the are not required to create a game whose primary feature is role-playing.

Then again, just my opinion, just like everything else said on this thread.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

The industry definition of "RPG elements" is "stats, experience points, and levels," but that is a misnomer. Yes, I'm saying that the way that the industry definition is off and a role-playing game does not require stats in any way.

That's the critical point though. "Misnomer" or not, that is the reality of the definition of "RPG" in a videogame context. Personally, I don't think the definition should change, either; to make it as broad as you're suggesting means nearly every video game in existence would necessarily become an RPG, rendering the label redundant. Essentially every video game with a protagonist is one where you assume a role.

Nah, what I'm suggesting is that the quintessential aspect of the RPG should be the player's ability to make decisions that effect the story, and, by proxy, gamers shouldn't be so up-in-arms about games like Mass Effect 2 supplanting stats for a more action-based system of play.

Just my opinion though, and I know that it's not a popular one in circles of RPG fans.

 

[Zhukov]

Then RPGs aren't the genre for you. Asking a genre to fundamentally change so you can better enjoy it shows that it might not be the genre for you. I'd like FPS to be more story driven and put less emphasis on the action. I don't like them that much in the first place. But me asking them to drastically change is unfair to fans of the genre and is unrealistic.

RPGs aren't the genre for me? Sez who? Screw that for a joke, I enjoy them.

Furthermore, I wasn't asking for the genre to change. The original question was whether or not I would play one with hidden stats. I just said I'd rather they remove the stats altogether. That's all. No different to you saying you'd rather shooters focus on story. (Agreed, incidentally.)

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Sure.

Although I'd rather they just get rid of the stats altogether.

Agree.

RPG's are suppose to be about talking to the characters, learning their stories, and acquiring spifftastic stuff that LOOKS cool. Stats just get in the way, making people go for ugly stuff simply because it's +1 damage. Sooner stats go away, the sooner people get to wear what they want to wear.

The go play an action game or a table top RP and leave video game RPGs alone, since stats are what video game RPGs are all about.

"Role Playing" does not equate to "Stats". Stats might be used as a tool to facilitate role-play in some games, but Role Playing without stats can and does exist.

Dragon Age, Skyrim are examples of games that are definitely "Role Playing" without having the "+1 damage" style stats that typify classical D&D.

Dragon Age and Skyrim still have loads of stats and numbers. Hell, you can break Skyrim by combining Smithing, Alchemy, and Enchantment.

 

[Joby Baumann]

i would like that yeah, i can see it working

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Yeah, this sounds pretty cool. I also agree that a strategy guide would not necessarily be required because, as you described, some things would be obvious (steel stronger than wood, but steel heavier than wood).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Then RPGs aren't the genre for you. Asking a genre to fundamentally change so you can better enjoy it shows that it might not be the genre for you. I'd like FPS to be more story driven and put less emphasis on the action. I don't like them that much in the first place. But me asking them to drastically change is unfair to fans of the genre and is unrealistic.

RPGs aren't the genre for me? Sez who? Screw that for a joke, I enjoy them.

Furthermore, I wasn't asking for the genre to change. The original question was whether or not I would play one with hidden stats. I just said I'd rather they remove the stats altogether. That's all. No different to you saying you'd rather shooters focus on story. (Agreed, incidentally.)

Sorry. I just get the vibe that you hate RPGs. I apologize for crossing the line with my post.

 

[Zhukov]

Sorry. I just get the vibe that you hate RPGs. I apologize for crossing the line with my post.

Huh. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I enjoy RPGs, especially Bioware's stuff. Hell, the first game I ever bought was Spiderweb Software's Exile. (Screenshot [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Exile_shot.png])

I'm just ambivalent about stats, that's all.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Sorry. I just get the vibe that you hate RPGs. I apologize for crossing the line with my post.

Huh. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I enjoy RPGs, especially Bioware's stuff. Hell, the first game I ever bought was Spiderweb Software's Exile. (Screenshot [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Exile_shot.png])

I'm just ambivalent about stats, that's all.

I think that it is all of the sarcastic remarks that you make on the Bioware news posts.

 

[Zhukov]

Sorry. I just get the vibe that you hate RPGs. I apologize for crossing the line with my post.

Huh. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I enjoy RPGs, especially Bioware's stuff. Hell, the first game I ever bought was Spiderweb Software's Exile. (Screenshot [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Exile_shot.png])

I'm just ambivalent about stats, that's all.

I think that it is all of the sarcastic remarks that you make on the Bioware news posts.

Well, I have a grumpy and cynical facade to maintain. Can't have people thinking I'm a fanboy.

*hides ME3 pre-order receipt*

 

[Kevin Lyons]

You know, I would definitely play a game like this if there was a good way to be able to keep some characters from falling behind others. I'd imagine a game like this to be sort of like Fire Emblem because of your example with the soccer team, so I'd imagine that there would be some problems when you find out that Character B is actually a lot better in a certain situation than Character A, who you've been using throughout the whole game.

 

[The Hero Killer]

Yes, I've always thought an RPG was about having a well developed story and playing a role in that story either a pre determined one or one that you make for yourself. I leave stats, numbers, and loot for dungeon crawler games like Diablo.

 

[Sentox6]

Nah, what I'm suggesting is that the quintessential aspect of the RPG should be the player's ability to make decisions that effect the story

That would mean retroactively re-labelling games, though; problematic at best. It also has the potential to undermine the definition you supplied earlier:

1. to assume the attitudes, actions, discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction

If the player is given choice in shaping the story outcome, then the possibility exists that the player will simply make choices that confirm their own personal attitudes, meaning that the player is roleplaying in an aesthetic sense only.

I guess I just don't see any real value in trying to change a genre label now.

by proxy, gamers shouldn't be so up-in-arms about games like Mass Effect 2 supplanting stats for a more action-based system of play.

I'm not sure how this necessarily follows. It seems possible the gamers upset about the changes in ME2 were upset because of their actual gameplay preferences, rather than because a label was contravened.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Nah, what I'm suggesting is that the quintessential aspect of the RPG should be the player's ability to make decisions that effect the story

That would mean retroactively re-labelling games, though; problematic at best. It also has the potential to undermine the definition you supplied earlier:

1. to assume the attitudes, actions, discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction

If the player is given choice in shaping the story outcome, then the possibility exists that the player will simply make choices that confirm their own personal attitudes, meaning that the player is roleplaying in an aesthetic sense only.

I guess I just don't see any real value in trying to change a genre label now.

by proxy, gamers shouldn't be so up-in-arms about games like Mass Effect 2 supplanting stats for a more action-based system of play.

I'm not sure how this necessarily follows. It seems possible the gamers upset about the changes in ME2 were upset because of their actual gameplay preferences, rather than because a label was contravened.

All good points, worthy of consideration.

I'm not really interested in changing genre labels. It would, as you said, get too confusing. Also, I'm in an extremely minority position, so my voice is drowned out by the opposition.

My grief is this: The assumption that "stats are what make an RPG an RPG" paves way for certain problems:

1) Lousy storytelling. I know too many people who are into tabletop not because they are interested in actually role-playing and crafting meaningful stories, but because they love the number-crunching and power-gaming, "I'm gonna make my character the most badass of all badasses!" If that's what some people like, I'm fine with that. My issue is that RPG developers see this behavior and assume that players care more for numbers and system than story and pathos. I've heard people rave about Demon's/Dark Souls, yet I've heard nothing regarding the quality, good or bad, of the game's story.

To me, the best RPGs will have a great system AND a great story. It's disheartening to see so many of those who are more interested in systems encourage developers (through buying power) to make games for people who are more interested in systems when RPG devs could be pushing the development of amazing game stories. When I was younger, the RPGs I played had the most interesting game stories. Recently, the most interesting game stories I've experienced have been outside the RPG genre in games like Red Dead Redemption and the Assassin's Creed series. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that focusing on system over story has contributed to this trend.

2) Unfair expectations. A game like Mass Effect 2 comes out, and some people go as far to argue that it's not an RPG, but a third-person shooter with some RPG elements. On the contrary, the role-playing remained intact. It was the stats that defied genre conventions. Why can we not have a role-playing game (a game where you play a role in a story) without a stat-focused system? The underlying assumption that an RPG must have a stat-based system is arbitrary, but people treat it like inviolable law.

3) Stifled creativity and innovation. In the tabletop world, there was a game that came out called Nobilis. It had an extremely simplified system. Each character has four attributes that are ranked from level 0 to level 4 (or 5, can't remember). The emphasis was on player/storyteller creativity and crafting fantastic stories that required creative thinking from everyone involved. The game did not sell well at all. Games like Nobilis and Mass Effect 2 try to stir the pot and do something different and they get turned because "an RPG HAS to have a detailed stat-based system." It's frustrating.