What is core gameplay in an RPG?

[Neanderthal]

Whenever you hear of a feature being booted, or a game being streamlined in some way you often hear the same excuse: This wasn't part of our core gameplay. But what exactly is core gameplay for an RPG? I mean i've played from pen and paper to computer for the past thirty some years, i've still no fucking idea, in fact I thought there was no such thing. If your idea's presented well enough, integrated and provides fun then almost anything will fit in a game.

Playing Arcanum recently I was amazed at what I was missing, thieving quests, skill quests, companion quests, and all kinds of content that were there for a specific build. I mean I know that I had enough on my plate, and I fucking enjoyed my playthrough, but I was intrigued by all that I couldn't access. Was this core to the game, I don't think so, I think it was all fairly much optional and yet they implemented so fucking much of it. Hell I could have missed the last part of the game, and the core content contained there, if i'd tried it on with one NPC. No thoughts about what was core to the game, more about what they could squeeze into it, how much reactivity and cool shit they could give you to find.

I suppose if you go back to the beginning and Chainmail, then core content is combat and fuck all else, but Gygax and Arneson were already moving away from that, they wanted something more and designed as such. Now though whether it's pen and paper or computer, scope has increased, and when a designer says that this is not part of our core experience, then i've got to wonder what is their core experience?

Now there's nothing wrong with a good straight combat game, I love me some Severance: Blade of Darkness or the original (and best) Diablo, and this is the oldest kind of RPG but do we just want that? Personally I want that and more, I want games that play like Arcanum with a shit load of content, a shit load of reactivity and a shit load of stuff that I can miss or be completely oblivious to. I mean a well told linear story is good and all, Legacy of Kain proves this, and you're interacting with it on a basic level, but i'd love some more gameplay, interaction and reactivity in there, and I don't think that it'd harm the franchise at all or any other story heavy game.

Seems to me that asking what is the core experience of a CRPG is the same as asking what is an RPG? And I think we all know there's no real definitive answer there. Anyway what's your thoughts, am I overthinking this or is this old hat to the Codex, all discussed years ago, interested to hear your opinions.

 

[racofer]

Riding a horse and spamming fireballs.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Thank you, OP. It's been some time since we had a what is an RPG thread.

 

[Neanderthal]

Thank you, OP. It's been some time since we had a what is an RPG thread.

Sorry, trying to steer away from that, but I keep hearing this "core" thing used as an excuse when a feature's booted.

 

[racofer]

And this discussion has already been settled by Pete Hines some time ago, and we all reached a consensus:

: If you want to pick flowers and make potions all day, then that's what you're role-playing. If you want to go shoot everybody in the head with a laser-musket, then that's what you're role-playing.

 

[Excidium II]

Going places and doing stuff

 

[pippin]

Core gameplay is a premade phrase to cover up the designer's lack of creativity

 

[Neanderthal]

Yeah sometimes seems to me that "core" experience is an excuse they've been using for the last fuck knows how long to dodge why games are getting to be simpler, smaller, skinner boxes.

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

Core gameplay of a role-playing game should be well... role-playing.

Sure, role-playing games were created from material like chainmail, but its grown to evolve way past that. Combat may be important for some kinds of games, but it's not an understatement when you say that you can have a lot of fun when running through a campaign that's devoid of combat and involves political intrigue, investigation, and well, role-playing.

Role-playing is the ability to emulate yourself, or a personality into a character that you're playing as. Dialogue, actions, thoughts, etc. They would all be unique to you and how you'd like to play and develop your character as. Funny barbarians, serious paladins, eclectic warlocks, pacifist druids, evil wizards; These are all ideas that a player should be able to role-play as.

 

[Animal]

Maybe you are overthinking it.

Core gameplay is the essential features of what makes a certain game work. Then we get the bonus content in side quests, branching stories, support skills, additional classes and so on.

Core gameplay of a role-playing game should be well... role-playing.

The problem is trying to stuff all games in the RPG bin. Games should be defined as having elements of multiple types, like the tags they use on Steam.

 

[Copper]

What Animal said. Core gameplay is the stuff that makes up the basic bulding-blocks of a game - done right, it's about thinking about exactly how each feature will work, and whether or not you want it to be 'gamey' (ie systematic) or fluff that's there to help with selling products, but has no more impact on the RSI inducing parts of the game than if all the levels were grey boxes.

 

[Neanderthal]

Do you not sometimes look at all the features that have been cast aside as not part of the core experience and wonder why though? For instance the NPC schedules, the living world, and the environmental interactions in Ultima VII twenty plus years ago. Why exactly were these not built upon by any company afterwards? I mean BG was hailed as the saviour of RPG's at the time it released, yet it was quite clearly a lesser, sparser product than the Ultimas in a lot of ways. Why did the public not say what the fuck happened? Instead you'll hear the excuse that these features were not part of the core experience of BG.

When did fucking looting and romances become such core fucking features while better crafted, more reactive gameworlds were not demanded?

 

[pippin]

I'd argue that romances are just an expression of reactivity in the game world, but most companies use it as a gimmick to introduce banal shit boring stuff. You could introduce several variables when dealing with romances and NPC relationships (like trust, leadership, influence, etc) but you don't see that. There has been a lot of talk about how gamers have become dumber and dumber with the years, but having complex mechanics in the background does not mean your game will be hard to play. In my opinion, games should be relatively easy to play, but they must be backed by solid mechanics and rulesets, and not by subjective shit like what Pete Hines said.

 

[Copper]

Do you not sometimes look at all the features that have been cast aside as not part of the core experience and wonder why though? For instance the NPC schedules, the living world, and the environmental interactions in Ultima VII twenty plus years ago. Why exactly were these not built upon by any company afterwards? I mean BG was hailed as the saviour of RPG's at the time it released, yet it was quite clearly a lesser, sparser product than the Ultimas in a lot of ways. Why did the public not say what the fuck happened? Instead you'll hear the excuse that these features were not part of the core experience of BG.

When did fucking looting and romances become such core fucking features while better crafted, more reactive gameworlds were not demanded?

What are you talking about? Beth has been slowly perfecting Radiant AI for, what, a decade?

In all seriousness, how do you feel about the more 'limited scope' approach of our Kickstarter saviours?

 

[Animal]

Well, GTA has been cramming more stuff into their games with each iteration, hasn't it? Although, that's the only game that comes to mind.

 

[Roguey]

The core is whatever you spend most of your time doing.

Quite the autistic question.

 

[Neanderthal]

What are you talking about? Beth has been slowly perfecting Radiant AI for, what, a decade?

In all seriousness, how do you feel about the more 'limited scope' approach of our Kickstarter saviours?

Limited scope can work, I mean just look at the first Fallout, it was fucking tight and there was nothing wasted there but it had content that you'd rarely see and a damn lot of reactivity. To be honest I think some of the Kickstarters have been doing better than the AAA scene, I mean look at Dragon Age Inquisition, you can't even pick up and use a weapon that the game doesn't want you to, while Poe for all its faults does well here with its armoury, with tens of millions less funding.

 

[Boleskine]

Hoarding useless items and weapons I don't need.

 

[Zed]

What is the core gameplay of an RPG:
differs from RPG to RPG

What is an RPG:
whatever is labeled an RPG and not quickly dismissed as a non-RPG by a consensus of prestigious RPG scholars

 

[StrongBelwas]

Do you not sometimes look at all the features that have been cast aside as not part of the core experience and wonder why though? For instance the NPC schedules, the living world, and the environmental interactions in Ultima VII twenty plus years ago. Why exactly were these not built upon by any company afterwards? I mean BG was hailed as the saviour of RPG's at the time it released, yet it was quite clearly a lesser, sparser product than the Ultimas in a lot of ways. Why did the public not say what the fuck happened? Instead you'll hear the excuse that these features were not part of the core experience of BG.

When did fucking looting and romances become such core fucking features while better crafted, more reactive gameworlds were not demanded?

Because not many people notice NPC schedules,living worlds, or environmental interactions, especially compared to the amount of effort needed to do it right. Lots of people notice looting and romances. Which one do you think a developer is going to invest more time/money in?

 

[Telengard]

"Core gameplay" is a term dreamed up by some clever marketing exec. It's incredibly useful as a pacifier to throw to the cRPG geeks when you're making a "spiritual successor" that's in no way for them anymore but is instead searching out an entirely new target demographic. It's one of those clever terms that doesn't mean anything, but is easily picked up by the commons because it appears to mean something. And thus it can be thrown down whenever some cRPG geek protests about something being stripped out, like it's some kind of catch-all definitive answer. But since it doesn't actually mean anything, it cannot actually answer anything, by definition. That's marketing for ya.

FYI, there is a clear demarcation between clever marketing and genius marketing. Clever marketing is much easier to spot than genius level. So, if you carefully look around, you'll start to recognize a lot of "meaninglessly meaningful" terms that are fed to the commons, in both business and politics.

 

[mondblut]

Core gameplay is watching little numbers go up

 

[Jaesun]

 

[Cyberarmy]

Chewing bubblegum and fucking bithces?

 

[Havoc]

Crafting and farming.