RPG design should be about...

[DraQ]

Protip: if you treat all of these as separate elements, your game will be shit.

This.

Immersion and roleplay includes stuff like being able to equip a broom and be a janitor, or a lute and play music at an inn.

No, that's what retards think it is.
If you design your game based on what retards think, your game will also be shit.

Immersion and roleplay is what you aim for, gameplay and systems is how you realize that.

Non-essential, not core mechanics. While systems and gameplay includes core mechanics, mostly combat.

Introducing isolated "non-core" mechanics for no good reason is usually a red flag in RPGs.
RPGs are based around the concept that what is and isn't core mechanics varies from character to character and from player to player.

By all means play your lute if it contributes meaningfully to how the game plays for example by contributing unique social interaction paths.

For example, Daggerfall's many language skills would be filed under immersion&roleplay, and not under systems&gameplay, since they aren't a core system. They aren't what the game is about, they are flavour.

And that's why throwing away language skills from Daggerfall was not necessarily decline.

 

[JarlFrank]

Any system, be it "core" or "flavor" or however you want to call it based on its importance to the gameplay (hint: a gameplay system's importance isn't necessarily tied to how many players use it, or how often it is used; if your game has stealth in it but there's only two stealth missions, the stealth system should still be treated as a "core" system, otherwise it will end up total shit like 90% of forced stealth missions in otherwise non-stealth games), has to interplay with other systems or at least have some effect on the game world, get some kind of recognition for being used, otherwise it's just LARPing.

Playing an instrument should do more than just make sounds. If your RPG has playable instruments, it should
a) tie the quality of the music to the character's skill (easily doable by recording several audio tracks of varying quality; if a character with low skill plays the harp, the shit-tier recording is played; if a player with high skill plays the harp, the good recording is played)
b) have some kind of reaction towards the player's action from the world: tavern patrons tossing a few coins at your feet (the amount of which is based on character's music skill), present NPCs recognizing you as a musician/bard which might open up additional dialog with them, etc

Generally, if the gameworld doesn't react to your actions, or the action doesn't have any relations to other systems, it's not a gameplay feature it's just LARPing.

 

[Karellen]

One might think that gameplay would be the obvious choice, but in all fairness and honesty, the most beloved cRPGs on the Codex aren't the ones with great gameplay or even good, well-designed mechanics. If you take a look at the Codex Top Ten, there's maybe two games there that aren't consistently discussed in terms like "oh, yeah, the combat is awful and terrible, the dungeon design is comically bad, the character building is kind of broken, half of these skills/abilities/doohickeys are objectively useless and did you know that this complex roleplaying subsystem here is totally bugged out and doesn't even do anything? Oh man, but seriously, the game is so good!"

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the ticket to being a great, beloved cRPG doesn't have that much to do with the mechanics, or at least their inherent quality and polish. Rather - and I don't really know which category it would fit - I think the most critical aspect is whether the gameworld is interesting or not. RPG fans will clearly tolerate utterly mediocre or straight-up bad game mechanics - at least to some extent - if the world the game would have them inhabit possesses the kind of charm and intrigue that exploring it is its own reward.

That doesn't mean that mechanics aren't important. Doubtlessly they are. What's more, even broken, humdrum mechanics can be applied to the task of making a world fun and engaging to explore and do things in. However, whereas in many other genres, good gameplay is sufficient to carry a game all on its own, I don't think that is the case in an RPG - good mechanics in an uninteresting world amount to nothing. Obviously having good mechanics is a plus, but the quality of the world is the foundation that everything else rests on.

 

[cvv]

good mechanics in an uninteresting world amount to nothing

Except when you're severely autistic even for Codex standards. In which case crunching bare numbers in an Excel sheet might be a lifechanging RPG experience for you.

 

[jac8awol]

Have to agree that it really comes down to the world-building. If you have a setting where things make sense, B follows A through rational process, beasts and people follow biological logic, then you're 90% of the way to success. You can get away with a lot of sub-par technical stuff if you can just get the player to suspend their disbelief and engage with the subject matter.

Character doesn't matter: predefined or player-generated. Plot doesn't have to matter that much: sandbox or hand-crafted. (For me personally sandbox is inferior). Systems and gameplay just have to be tolerable: we will all bitch anyway. So what does that leave? Immersion. But what makes immersion? Everything.

 

[cvv]

Immersion is my priority in RPGs but I don't require it to have fun. When I play something like Legends of Grimrock or Operencia I'm having a blast but nobody can accuse these games to suck you into their living, breathing world.

Not sure I agree with DraQ that immersion is what you achieve through systems and gameplay. Seems to me art is way more important for thatB, especially writing. Music and visual design contribute a bunch too. Betrayal at Krondor can totally immerse you even today, even though the graphics already looked terrible 30 years ago, just because how goddamn well written that game is. Maybe systems and gameplay play almost no role in immersion. Witcher 3 is very immersive despite its systems being average at best, terrible at the worst.

 

[DalekFlay]

One might think that gameplay would be the obvious choice, but in all fairness and honesty, the most beloved cRPGs on the Codex aren't the ones with great gameplay or even good, well-designed mechanics. If you take a look at the Codex Top Ten, there's maybe two games there that aren't consistently discussed in terms like "oh, yeah, the combat is awful and terrible, the dungeon design is comically bad, the character building is kind of broken, half of these skills/abilities/doohickeys are objectively useless and did you know that this complex roleplaying subsystem here is totally bugged out and doesn't even do anything? Oh man, but seriously, the game is so good!"

Codex is not a hivemind either way. There are plenty here obsessed with mechanics and systems, who think Pathfinder is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the feeling of walking along the coastline in Morrowind and soaking up the atmosphere is for fags. However there are also plenty here obsessed with story and immersion and whatnot, as the "top RPGs" list should easily prove. I think everyone has a priority list and if a game really excels at number one on your list then the other aspects being poor is easier to forgive. Usually when a Codexer attacks a top 50 game, it's because his priority is not what that game excels at, but it does excel at something that is someone else's priority.

I'll admit immersion and world design is probably my biggest priority. If the immersion is amazing, and I feel like I'm exploring a cool place, I can forgive failings in other areas.

 

[Melcar]

Revealing female body armor
Loot

 

[IDtenT]

When designing a role playing game, what should its lead designers focus on, and what should the money mostly go towards?
Obviously you want some of all three categories, but what should get the most work behind it?

It should be driven by the vision of the lead. Duh.

 

[DraQ]

Immersion is my priority in RPGs but I don't require it to have fun. When I play something like Legends of Grimrock or Operencia I'm having a blast but nobody can accuse these games to suck you into their living, breathing world.

Not sure I agree with DraQ that immersion is what you achieve through systems and gameplay.

I guess I'll have to agree.
Worldbuilding is the king (also see Karellen 's post). Stories hinge on the world for them to happen in, mechanics realize a world in interactive manner and so on.

Seems to me art is way more important for thatB, especially writing. Music and visual design contribute a bunch too.

Music, visual design and writing can go a long way selling what is happening in game.

Maybe systems and gameplay play almost no role in immersion.

Technically that's probably correct, but OTOH we'd rather not have to fix broken games with mods and larping, and discussing mechanics is actually possible on objective level.

Also mechanics seems to be the key to achieve the holy grail of RPGs - convincing systemic reactivity on every observable level.

 

[agris]

good mechanics in an uninteresting world amount to nothing

Except when you're severely autistic even for Codex standards. In which case crunching bare numbers in an Excel sheet might be a lifechanging RPG experience for you.

The gameplay in Office 2003 was the best, once they dumbed it down with the ribbon in 2007 there was no going back..

 

[DraQ]

good mechanics in an uninteresting world amount to nothing

Except when you're severely autistic even for Codex standards. In which case crunching bare numbers in an Excel sheet might be a lifechanging RPG experience for you.

If you are severely autistic then you look for something that has less of an unfunny joke vibe to its mechanics than almost any RPG to date.

 

[Tigranes]

good mechanics in an uninteresting world amount to nothing

Except when you're severely autistic even for Codex standards. In which case crunching bare numbers in an Excel sheet might be a lifechanging RPG experience for you.

The gameplay in Office 2003 was the best, once they dumbed it down with the ribbon in 2007 there was no going back..

 

[Dramart]

I think you should do the best you can with the three aspects. I like a balance between gameplay and setting/story. Setting, roleplay, characters, story seem more important. Witcher, Mass Effect, Disco Elysium, have mediocre or not gameplay at all and the stories, character and settings are the best of it and they were a success. Even game like Dark Souls which have good gameplay, it was successful I think because of its lore and atmoposhere. So, if you want success focus more on the first and third option to satisfy the public, those fucking cunts. But in my opinion the more balanced the three aspects, the better the game will be.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Using your logic, should a lockpicking system test PLAYER skill, or CHARACTER skill?

any game designer that includes a lockpicking minigame in an rpg is a retard and I hate them

 

[Ontopoly]

Using your logic, should a lockpicking system test PLAYER skill, or CHARACTER skill?

any game designer that includes a lockpicking minigame in an rpg is a retard and I hate them

Any non optional mini games really.

 

[Ol' Willy]

If a game has good plot and characters, setting and immersion element, then it's good and people would be willing to overlook its gameplay shortages.
If a game has good systems and mechanics, enjoyable gameplay, then it's good and people would be wiling to overlook its plot and characters shortages.
If a game has both first and second points combined, then it's a masterpiece and people would be pissing their pants out of joy.

 

[Ranarama]

Pick one. It's okay to do different things with a fucking genre. Games come first, the genres are just attempts to understand tropes for fucks sake.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Pick one. It's okay to do different things with a fucking genre. Games come first, the genres are just attempts to understand tropes for fucks sake.

No, the genres define a checklist of features that must be added (or shoehorned) into the game regardless of what the developers have in mind. I dropped System Shock 2 and gave it 1/10 because it doesn't feature dialogue trees, NPCs, quests, romances, and C&C.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

It depends on what the talents of the developer and the people working beneath him are. You're not going to get a good story and dialog or immersion out of someone who solely consumes only recent fantasy and romance novels as their basis for prose. You're not going to get good gameplay out of someone who only plays Infinity Engine games on story mode.
Consequently, I find the answer is tied to the quality of your combat system. It is tedious, unfun trash? Does it take 30 seconds to kill a single enemy? Load that sucker up with dialog or immersion and try to make all your fights "epic". If its fun, well, it doesn't matter what the characters are saying as long as they speak readable English. Its nice if you add something on top of that, but it doesn't matter at that point.

 

[agris]

Congratulations on your new role at inXile as Senior Gameplay Designer, zwanzig_zwoelf - see you in sunny southern California!

 

[CryptRat]

RPG fans will clearly tolerate utterly mediocre or straight-up bad game mechanics - at least to some extent - if the world the game would have them inhabit possesses the kind of charm and intrigue that exploring it is its own reward.

That doesn't mean that mechanics aren't important. Doubtlessly they are. What's more, even broken, humdrum mechanics can be applied to the task of making a world fun and engaging to explore and do things in.

What most of these Codex Top 10 RPGs have in common are an elaborate world but also elaborate non-combat reactions to the complex and pivotal character sheet of a single created character, narrative choices, and links between the two aspects in particular with dialog options linked to stats. The three aspects are important to understand what game is there and what game is not, the more potential narrative choices the better, stats should lock or unlock options whenever it makes sense, and it's not only about stats in dialogs but also about level design allowing stealth and such. Based on these games it's not that people here tolerate bad mechanics in general but rather that they value this type of mechanics.

 

[Karellen]

RPG fans will clearly tolerate utterly mediocre or straight-up bad game mechanics - at least to some extent - if the world the game would have them inhabit possesses the kind of charm and intrigue that exploring it is its own reward.

That doesn't mean that mechanics aren't important. Doubtlessly they are. What's more, even broken, humdrum mechanics can be applied to the task of making a world fun and engaging to explore and do things in.

What most of these Codex Top 10 RPGs have in common are an elaborate world but also elaborate non-combat reactions to the complex and pivotal character sheet of a single created character, narrative choices, and links between the two aspects in particular with dialog options linked to stats. The three aspects are important to understand what game is there and what game is not, the more potential narrative choices the better, stats should lock or unlock options whenever it makes sense, and it's not only about stats in dialogs but also about level design allowing stealth and such. Based on these games it's not that people here tolerate bad mechanics in general but rather that they value this type of mechanics.

You aren't wrong, but allow me to offer this counterpoint: more recent games like Torment: Tides of Numenera aren't inferior to Codex favourites when it comes to RPG mechanics and narrative choices, except for this: it turns out that combing through dialogue options and discovering different quest resolutions and whatnot is not terribly interesting unless one happens to be already engaged in the game, its setting and its characters, and Tides of Numenera is a boring game with a pretentious and unappealing setting and scenario. RPG mechanics surely matter, but they do nothing on their own. Furthermore, I would posit that people generally overestimate how much reactivity and whatnot is really needed; Planescape Torment, Fallout and Baldur's Gate have reactivity, yes, but it's pretty inconsistent and largely cosmetic. Nonetheless, just having that much suffices to make the game great when it is already engaging on other merits. Which brings me to my point; it's not obvious to me that having more reactivity and narrative choices (at least of the dialogue tree variety) is the crucial point in RPG design; it seems that following that roads leads very quickly to the territory of diminishing returns, and in the end it won't matter if the player isn't already disposed to care about the setting and the narrative.

 

[CryptRat]

The point is not what I think about dialog choices, narrative choices, and options locked behind a single character creation, the feature I value the most is full party creation so my very own favourite games are very different from the Codex's. The point is that the Codex, and I acknowledge the merits of the games the Codex likes, only likes Black Isle/Looking Glass kinds of games, you can't reduce Codex's taste to exploration of a cool world while there's no trace of an Ultima, Might&Magic, Quest for glory game or any different style exploration-focused game anywhere near the top of the list. Single character non-combat interactivity mechanisms and choices are valued here, which is why I think it's unfair to say the Codex does not care about mechanisms at all.

 

[Karellen]

Ahh, when you put it like that, I realise I was coming across as kind of flippant. I don't mean to say that Codex should change its name to "Walking Sim Codex" - it is clear that people here tend to have a clear preference for specific types of mechanics and expect to find them in RPGs (as otherwise they don't really count as RPGs). It is also true that in downplaying that I'm definitely emphasising my own preferences, as I like exploration in all kinds of games.

However, the initial question was what RPG designers should spend most of their effort on, and I think that this poll shows a skewed, knee-jerk response to it. It's not readily obvious what great C&C and non-combat mechanics even look like, great games in the past have done well with fairly rudimentary (yet unobtrusive) interpretations of them, and going to a great deal of effort to try and improve on them has lead to mixed or negative results. On that note, I suspect that one reason for T:ToN's mediocrity was that the developers spent excessive effort on trying to create erudite and complex C&C, to the effect that the game ended up with a lot of superfluous attention to detail on what was ultimately mediocre, bland content. Having more of it certainly wouldn't have helped.