Why aren't there more actual role-playing games?

[ThriKreen]

What you describe in your OP -while admittedly interesting- doesn't sound like traditional roleplaying to me, as I understand it, because you're not getting to create your own character and motivations; you're just being forced into a pre-determined part. What you have essentially described is Virtue's Last Reward.

I don't know, maybe I don't know what RPG really means.

He still wants the other players and NPCs to react accordingly to consequences and decisions he makes in the game, something you tend not to get in open world games. You get that with Bioware/Obsidian games, but he wants to expand it to support multiplayer.

He wants more ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing. Sure it might be predetermined, multiple choice, but at least you have such a choice offered to you, and not a linear structure like say, Uncharted.

 

[Artaneius]

Because a true RPG where it's basically your story would honestly be boring as shit and for most gamers that are adults now don't have the time to "create their own story". When I was a kid, I loved doing role plays with friends, including the girl who became my wife later on. Me and the wife sometimes still do the roleplay through instant messengers whenever one of us has to be gone for a period of time. But you can't expect people who have a crap load of responsibilities to be able to "imagine a story". Why pay the developer or publisher if the player is forced to actually make the game? RPG's are usually story driven and without a story already made, kind of defeats the purpose of buying the game if I have to make up the story itself. I could just find someone interested in Role Plays in general and using instant messengers just make it for free. It's retarded to spend money on something you can do for free.

 

[Benpasko]

Sounds like you need more Space Station 13 in your life, OP (unless you just got finished with a round)
It's a multiplayer online RPG, where you're all just dudes doing jobs, and then a random scenario occurs (saboteurs, wizard, space monster, etc), and you just act out responses. Also you'll feel like real crewman by the time you know what you're doing, try manually bypassing a maintenance door sometime.

 

[BaronVH]

To me, a true RPG must be a game where you can pick a type of character with personality and play that personality throughout and have that personality affect the world. This means that World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Mass Effect are not true RPGs, although Mass Effect has the renegade/paragon. The best example of a true RPG is the first Fallout. You want to be a dumb but lucky oaf, you can. You want to be an evil female assassin that only is good at night? I have played as a genious who cannot fight at all and talked the huge boss at the end to death. You can play however you want. There are also multiple outcomes based on how you played. The first Baldur's Gate really just has one outcome and it is almost impossible to play evil. The first Knights of the Old Republic allows freedom to play how you want. I think why you don't see more of these pure RPGs are that they are hard as hell to make, would take forever with modern graphics, and not sell as well. Therefore, you get games with RPG elements like Destiny, Dark Souls, etc. Please do not think I am dissing on any of the games I mentioned. I loved Borderlands 2, but that was a great shooter with RPG elements. All of these are great, except WoW. I just cannot stand the manipulative nature of a MMORPG.

 

[Amaror]

In a video game context, RPGs are now so synonymous with leveling and loot that the original/literal meaning of the term has pretty much been 100% supplanted. But it's not just the term that has dropped from the collective consciousness.

Multiplayer games almost universally allot players one of two roles: adversary or cooperative partner. There might be some superficial differences (e.g. healer vs tank), but ultimately everyone's goals are simplistic ("defeat the bad guys") and getting into your role is hardly encouraged ("just do the thing and don't ask why").

Why aren't there ever any multiplayer games that give you a fascinating character to play, with complex motivations and gameplay that rewards you for investing in your role? Am I alone in pining for something like that?

A dream game of mine would have all the players control characters waking up on a mysterious island, where you need to work together to survive. But each character has their own backstory, skillset and agendas: one man is trying to find his lost daughter; a soldier is trying to recover all the dog tags of his massacred platoon; one woman is a morally bankrupt scientist who needs to keep the little girl she's been experimenting on hidden; a pilot needs to repair his plane and rescue as many people as possible; a spy is trying to murder everyone to keep the island secret, but needs the plane fixed first so he can escape with some documents, etc. These character-agenda combinations could be rolled randomly so each game is distinct and the narrative emerges differently.

The gameplay would necessitate that you forge alliances to survive. I'm envisioning something like the open-world survival gameplay of DayZ crossed with the "you always need an ally nearby or you're screwed" mechanics of Left 4 Dead, but with less running-and-gunning and more running-and-hiding. The backstory/agenda system then encourages you to play in a way that enriches everyone's experience, rather than everyone just deciding to shoot on sight.


This isn't a thread about my game ideas though, I'm just wondering why something like this hasn't ever really been done. It seems like the RPG genre was originally based on pen-and-paper games, but the spirit of imagination and collaborative storytelling was swiftly discarded, and nobody has ever really gone back for it.

Just imagine all the fantastic multiplayer games you could make by leveraging/inspiring people's imaginations, rather than just having them mindlessly shoot at each other.

You really should try Space Station 13.
It's basically everything you described. Everyone gets on a space station and has an assigned job.
There are several scenarios of whos going to be the bad guy and everyone else has to figure out what scenario is playing and whos behind it.
One Scenario has one person being the traitor who has to get something and escape as the only one in the shuttle which arrives after a certain time.
Another one has the Ai go rogue, trying to use robots and turrets to kill people, while playing innocent long enough for no one to realize your rogue and disable you.
Another one spawns several persons as bad guy shapeshifter monsters.

And everyone is played by a real person, even the AI.

I have to say it's a bit too complex to get in it for me and i don't have enough time to do it, like i once had with df, but if you really want to play such a game and can get yourself through the intense complexity, you will most likely have a blast of a time.
Here's a video of a youtuber playing the game as the traitor. He does it really really well in this playthrough and it's really fun to watch him trick everybody.

 

[veloper]

All the TS needs is a bunch of people who are interested in playing the same thespian game as him and just one more guy willing to do all the work.

Then all he needs is a game with an editor and a gamemaster client, like NWN, and he's all set.
The problem is not the software, it's finding that one suitable dungeon master guy.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well I'd kind of argue that the levelling and character builds is the role playing, as you are building and developing your (unique, personal) character. A core experience of an RPG is the desire to build a character and to project yourself into that character, so that you develop a more personal narrative as your character develops, and I think you're missing something if you just play Dark Souls for the combat.

Dark Souls 2 was widely critisized, despite refinements to its combat system from the first game, for its level design. People lost the sense of discovery and exploration that the first game did seemingly better, that made the experience more of an adventure rather than just a progression down a linear path, working methodically towards the final battle at the end. In this way, it took away some of the development the player shared with their character that comes through discovery. It focused more on the combat, and less on the experience and atmosphere. If, like you say, people just played these as simple dungeon crawlers as opposed to an experience that provides a more personal experience of exploration and development, then I doubt there would have been as many people bringing up complaints.

Heaven knows how you'd describe JRPGs, although a vast majority seem to use amnesia as a starting base to allow the player to project themself into their role, and they do share the common theme that as part of the reason you play the game is to grow as your character does, but JRPGs are pretty much a seperate genre to what we'd call a Western RPG. I think Extra Credits did a whole series of videos on this schism that was quite interesting.

I don't feel leveling is required for an RPG. Like I said earlier, you can start DnD at max level and it's still an RPG. I feel the core of an RPG isn't the combat, it's what you can do outside of combat.

I wasn't a fan of Dark Souls much at all. I was disappointed by the fact that a melee build isn't much more than choosing along a spectrum of being quick and using a dex scaling weapon to being slow and using a strength scaling weapon. I couldn't play a rogue or a ranger for example. I thought I'd have to dodge as my main defense as a dex character (which caused me many deaths at the start of the game), but you can block almost all enemy attacks with a light shield, it didn't make sense I could block attacks by bigger enemies with bigger weapons. I was disappointed that leveling was just upping stats, not getting new abilities and skills; I just became better with my katana due to stats going up. The RPG mechanics were very unsound to me with a kind of magic (pyromancy) that wasn't stat dependent and a stat not doing anything (resistance). Hell, you can avoid leveling everything but vitality and endurance if you want because you can put an element on your weapon (so you don't need dex or str) and you can use pyromancy for your magic. I wasn't a fan of the controls and lock-on system; the main reason it was hard to fight more than 1 enemy at once was because you can't backpedal with a shield up and not locked-on (any other game, your character backpedals with a raised shield). The level design and atmosphere were really the only things I thought were good about Dark Souls.

JRPGs are really nothing but adventure games with a turn-based combat system. Remove the turn-based combat and a JRPG is a straight-up adventure game. Or add a turn-based combat system to an adventure game like The Longest Journey and it becomes a JRPG. So, a JRPG at its core is either an adventure game or a combat game, whatever you feel is the focus (the story/characters or combat).

At just past the 8 minute mark in this rather old Escapist Podcast [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/5431-035-What-Defines-An-RPG-More-Mass-Effect], they start talking about what defines an RPG, and I'm 100% with Tito on what he says.

 

[rob_simple]

What you describe in your OP -while admittedly interesting- doesn't sound like traditional roleplaying to me, as I understand it, because you're not getting to create your own character and motivations; you're just being forced into a pre-determined part. What you have essentially described is Virtue's Last Reward.

I don't know, maybe I don't know what RPG really means.

He still wants the other players and NPCs to react accordingly to consequences and decisions he makes in the game, something you tend not to get in open world games. You get that with Bioware/Obsidian games, but he wants to expand it to support multiplayer.

He wants more ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing. Sure it might be predetermined, multiple choice, but at least you have such a choice offered to you, and not a linear structure like say, Uncharted.

How would that differ from any game with a moral choice system that already exists? I'm not trying to be obtuse, it's just on the face of it I feel like I've played games like this a whole lot over the last couple of years, although admittedly never a multiplayer one.

I'd rather have a roleplaying mutliplayer game where the only thing that is set from the start are your skills/stats and everything else about how you play the game is up to you. So how I choose to act, through my actions and how I communicate with my team mates, will in turn affect how they work with me or if they even want to work with me at all.

I just like the idea of, for example, agreeing to be a sniper that will hold lookout for the rest of my team while they raid an abandoned facility, but while they're doing that I actually block all the exits to the building and try and pick them off one by one; or maybe I could have previously agreed with either a group of NPC bandits or another group of players that they could wait inside and set a trap for them, (again, leaving me the option to uphold my bargain with them or trap them all inside and shell it to kingdom come).

In any case, the only way word of my actions would get out to the rest of the game world would be if the faction I helped told other people what I did, or if one of the people I double-crossed actually managed to escape; it would give me a genuine motivation to make sure everything went according to my plan, as opposed to your standard good karma/bad karma arbitrary awards, because the more loose ends I leave the harder the game will become for me.

To me, that's what a true roleplaying game is.

 

[Bad Jim]

For me, the telltale sign to determine whether a game is an RPG or not is how much can you actually do outside of combat. If all your choices exist within combat, then it's not an RPG.

I'm not sure this definition is watertight, as it means games like Gran Turismo are RPGs. I think it is more accurate to say that RPGs offer a great deal of freedom in what you do.

In pen and paper RPGs, that's the whole point. In a Lord of the Rings scenario for example, you could try getting the eagles to fly the ring to Mordor. Your DM might object that the eagles couldn't/wouldn't do it, but he might let you try it.

In a computer game, you wouldn't even have the conversation options to suggest the eagle plan. The devs just wouldn't think of it. But an RPG should cover most of the ways you might reasonably attempt to do something. If you have to get someone out of jail for example, you might fight your way in, or sneak in, or bribe the parole board, or appeal the conviction, or pay bail. It shouldn't just be about hacking guards to pieces.

Perhaps a better example of a computer RPG would be Minecraft, as you can do quite a lot of stuff, at your own discretion, and there aren't many artificial limits on what you can do. The only big drawback is the limited NPC interaction, but that's a big drawback for everything.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

For me, the telltale sign to determine whether a game is an RPG or not is how much can you actually do outside of combat. If all your choices exist within combat, then it's not an RPG.

I'm not sure this definition is watertight, as it means games like Gran Turismo are RPGs. I think it is more accurate to say that RPGs offer a great deal of freedom in what you do.

In pen and paper RPGs, that's the whole point. In a Lord of the Rings scenario for example, you could try getting the eagles to fly the ring to Mordor. Your DM might object that the eagles couldn't/wouldn't do it, but he might let you try it.

In a computer game, you wouldn't even have the conversation options to suggest the eagle plan. The devs just wouldn't think of it. But an RPG should cover most of the ways you might reasonably attempt to do something. If you have to get someone out of jail for example, you might fight your way in, or sneak in, or bribe the parole board, or appeal the conviction, or pay bail. It shouldn't just be about hacking guards to pieces.

Perhaps a better example of a computer RPG would be Minecraft, as you can do quite a lot of stuff, at your own discretion, and there aren't many artificial limits on what you can do. The only big drawback is the limited NPC interaction, but that's a big drawback for everything.

I find the simple and basic Wikipedia definition covers it well:
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.

An RPG needs characters (no Gran Turismo) and a narrative (no Minecraft). A video game RPG isn't going to be able to be nearly as open as a pen and paper game but the core focus can still be the same. The core of Mass Effect is the role-playing. You can't do anything you want obviously, but you have plenty of room to make several impactful decisions.

 

[Bad Jim]

I find the simple and basic Wikipedia definition covers it well:
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.

An RPG needs characters (no Gran Turismo) and a narrative (no Minecraft). A video game RPG isn't going to be able to be nearly as open as a pen and paper game but the core focus can still be the same. The core of Mass Effect is the role-playing. You can't do anything you want obviously, but you have plenty of room to make several impactful decisions.

Except, of course, that the wikpedia definition allows pretty much any game with characters and a plot to be considered an RPG. Gran Turismo might not have characters, but Need For Speed Carbon does, along with a plot. Half Life 2 has a plot and characters. Neither of these are usually considered RPGs.

And on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

the wiki is very vague on how to tell whether a game is an RPG.

Actually I think the real answer is that it's a label applied to a number of genres inspired by pen and paper RPGs without any proper definition of its' own.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Except, of course, that the wikpedia definition allows pretty much any game with characters and a plot to be considered an RPG. Gran Turismo might not have characters, but Need For Speed Carbon does, along with a plot. Half Life 2 has a plot and characters. Neither of these are usually considered RPGs.

And on this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

the wiki is very vague on how to tell whether a game is an RPG.

Actually I think the real answer is that it's a label applied to a number of genres inspired by pen and paper RPGs without any proper definition of its' own.

The definition says that players take responsibility for acting out roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making. Very few video game RPGs would be RPGs under the definition like say almost all JRPGs as there needs to be more than just plot and characters.

 

[The Random Critic]

Wouldn't visual novels count as Rpg then?

Also the latest Fire Emblem

I wasn't a fan of Dark Souls much at all. I was disappointed by the fact that a melee build isn't much more than choosing along a spectrum of being quick and using a dex scaling weapon to being slow and using a strength scaling weapon. I couldn't play a rogue or a ranger for example. I thought I'd have to dodge as my main defense as a dex character (which caused me many deaths at the start of the game), but you can block almost all enemy attacks with a light shield, it didn't make sense I could block attacks by bigger enemies with bigger weapons. I was disappointed that leveling was just upping stats, not getting new abilities and skills; I just became better with my katana due to stats going up. The RPG mechanics were very unsound to me with a kind of magic (pyromancy) that wasn't stat dependent and a stat not doing anything (resistance). Hell, you can avoid leveling everything but vitality and endurance if you want because you can put an element on your weapon (so you don't need dex or str) and you can use pyromancy for your magic. I wasn't a fan of the controls and lock-on system; the main reason it was hard to fight more than 1 enemy at once was because you can't backpedal with a shield up and not locked-on (any other game, your character backpedals with a raised shield). The level design and atmosphere were really the only things I thought were good about Dark Souls.

Given the fact that the fog/leo ring was nerfed so hard because everyone complain of it's annoyance in pvp. (to a point it was removed as a tool for the player in it's sequel) And that the whole pvp/pve encounters in Dark souls usally for me involves around dancing with the other guy just to land a single back stab. This isn't even counting Disguising yourself as a pot and the fact that archer actually has the easiest (and boringest, that is a word btw) time of beating though the whole entire game

Also Tactical Ogre?

 

[duwenbasden]

No idea, since it is obvious from this thread we still don't have a concensus on what constitutes as an "RPG". If I am to define a definition, then:
- Character must be player-created.
-- If created by the designer, then you are just playing an adventure game with Fuckface A(R) instead of you/your avatar.
- You are told the "what" on the objective.
-- You need the cohesion of a framing device, otherwise, it's just a set of Lego with the box and instructions missing.
- You are not being micro-managed to the objective.
-- You also need a way for the player to RP. If they are told the way to do the story, then the player is just acting, not roleplaying.

The Elder Scrolls (exc. Online), Dragon Age Origins (not 2), and the Fallout (not Bro) comes to mind.

 

[Duskflamer]

I stumbled onto this on steam just now, is this the sort of thing you're looking for? http://store.steampowered.com/app/307290/?snr=1_4_4__tab-NewReleasesFilteredDLC_2

 

[Bad Jim]

The (wikipedia) definition says that players take responsibility for acting out roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making

Any decision intended by the designer can be considered "structured decision making". Even if it's just choosing the two weapons you want to carry. And making that decision is usually well within character. So you can still call almost any AAA game an RPG.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The (wikipedia) definition says that players take responsibility for acting out roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making

Any decision intended by the designer can be considered "structured decision making". Even if it's just choosing the two weapons you want to carry. And making that decision is usually well within character. So you can still call almost any AAA game an RPG.

That is not structured decision-making. Even if you do consider it structured decision-making, it is still disqualified from the RPG label because the "structured decision-making" is the not the core focus of the game. The core focus in a shooter is the shooting, not weapon decisions. Whatever you spend the most time doing is the game's core genre; it's why Mirror's Edge is a platformer first and not a shooter since you spend very little time shooting. Mass Effect you spend the majority of game time making decisions, there's more role-playing than anything else in the game. Very very few video game actually qualify as RPGs under the definition of an RPG.

 

[Echopunk]

I do find that I have to bring my own role playing to RPGs, but since I have the option of doing so, it doesn't bother me. I realized the extent to which I do this during my first and second Skyrim playthroughs.

Initially, I was just playing it like a game. I was maximizing my character with everything available, and not having all that much fun as I was in my early hours with the game where I just took my bow and followed various rivers, knocking down as many deer as I could, turning their hides into clothing to wear and sell, and learning how to improve my weapons.

Once I started collecting Deadric prizes and mastering various magic spells, I felt less like I was playing the character I'd created and more like I was just playing a game.

To this date, I've never finished the first character's main questline.

My second character was basically Conan in Skyrim. He eschewed magic, trusting only his armor, his double handed blade, the skyforge, and his noble steed, which aided him in the knee-capitation of many giants. See, his first steed heroically tried tanking a giant when Koron (Conan spelled sideways, with bad vision?) somehow managed to not die from a giant's attack. Naturally, the giant took out its frustration on the horse. From that moment on, Koron was literally less interested with conversing with an old Dov (or duking it out with Alduin in Sovengarde) than he was with wiping out every single giant in the province.

That's not the core story of Skyrim, but it was for this character.

With this set of choices as my lens, I looked back at other games and realized I always have more fun when I do some version of this. When I just try to play as myself (making decisions in the narrative/skill mechanics) exactly the way I would for myself, the fact I know I'm playing a game gets in the way. I meta-game because I want max xp to make my "me" as bad-ass as possible, because I do not accept that my character (and myself) are less interesting without flaws.

My best times with Skyrim, Morrowind, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Jade Empire, Knights of the Old Republic, etc come when I make up my mind about who the character will be, and write that story with my actions.

I may be gimping my character, not following questlines or skill trees that would make me more powerful because they don't fit with the established personality I have in mind, but it makes the game more interesting, and more immersing to me.

There is plenty of role playing in RPGs, if you are willing to look for it.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

You really should try Space Station 13.

I have to say it's a bit too complex to get in it for me and i don't have enough time to do it, like i once had with df, but if you really want to play such a game and can get yourself through the intense complexity, you will most likely have a blast of a time.

I played Space Station 13 after reading some suggestions in this thread.
You're right, it's very close to what I was describing.
It's way over-complicated and the controls are atrocious, but the core idea is cool. It's fairly popular too: I don't see why more games like this aren't around. With updated graphics and better design, it could make for a very engaging experience. Yet what they've accomplished with such a non-existent budget is very impressive.

Especially ironic considering all the people in this thread who seem to think it's non-viable or downright impossible to make a game like this.

 

[happyninja42]

Why aren't there ever any multiplayer games that give you a fascinating character to play, with complex motivations and gameplay that rewards you for investing in your role? Am I alone in pining for something like that?

Because RPGs have never been about that?

even the D&D board game was only "make a character, set his stats, use those stats to raid dungeons and fight monsters" not "live out a realistic life"

You are confusing RPGs with simulators like... the Sims.

No he isn't. Plenty of games focus on the story and the character development, and very little focus on killing monsters and taking their loot.


OT: Because it's hard to code role-playing into a video game. Roleplaying is more engendered by the player themself, and injecting their own motivations and desires for their character. When the game is coded to limit a certain number of choices to resolve the problem in front of you, you are limited in how you can resolve it, so you can't have your character express themselves in a unique way, by finding some unconventional method to continue the story. You have the choices the programmers gave you, nothing more.