Why do you play RPG's? No, really, why?

[Mustawd]

We think we can break anything down into enough discrete choices, put them into excel and figure it out, but that's not how it works.

Tell us where excel, probably the next wonder of the world, touched you. I bet it wasn't even excel. It was probably power point.

Don't worry excel. I won't let the bad man hurt you.

 

[pippin]

I play games for fun

and also for combat, exploring and crazy builds

 

[Zenith]

KC, thrice.
1. Exploration is the thing that hooks me the most about games. This isn't exclusive to RPGs, and in fact is theoretically inferior to how it could be in most other genres, but somehow only RPGs and hybrids consistently give a damn about having exploration that isn't just collectables.
2. Hobo hours. That time at the start of an RPG when you're scraping by and occasionally have to cheese because you failed at some aspect of character creation. Obviously doesn't apply to all RPGs.
3. Persistence of the world. Rules aren't just made for the player as the center of the universe, they apply across the board to NPCs as well. Dropped items remain over time, or are picked up by NPCs. And so on, in short, the world doesn't feel contrived and scripted.

 

[Sarastro]

I mostly enjoy the combat and character building in rpgs. I have finished some games just for the story too, however.

Some games I like for the "logistics", like Magic Candle.

I have not played Magic Candle and don't understand what you mean. Would you care to explain this to me?

 

[mushaden]

The roleplaying element is a pathetic creativity outlet that is sorely needed in my boring life.

The combat is stimulating without requiring too much mental focus (which is why I've always been shit at strategy games).

No hand eye coordination needed for turn based. Also helps when I can sip my beer or just space out without worrying

 

[Jrpgfan]

It's the whole package for me I guess, but what I like the most is reactivity. I like seeing the world reacting to my choices(both character related and story related), but that alone usually won't keep me hooked for too long - for that it must do atleast either combat or exploration really well and have good to decent storytelling/writing. Of course, it's really hard to find all those things put together outside the RPG genre and that's why it's my favorite type of game.

 

[Crispy]

In case you're wondering, I kept the poll choices private so there won't be any harassment going on. GRPG is not the place for that, IMO.

 

[octavius]

Some games I like for the "logistics", like Magic Candle.

I have not played Magic Candle and don't understand what you mean. Would you care to explain this to me?

The splitting of the party.
Time management of individual characters.
Planning travel ahead. You need lots of equipment, and the game has a time limit.

 

[Crispy]

The most interesting and somewhat surprising result I'm seeing so far is the immersion into the protagonist's role one, which is receiving a considerable number of votes.

I certainly do enjoy taking on the role of a Geralt or what have you, but I would never consider that to be my primary attraction to an RPG. For those who chose/choose that, care to explain?

 

[Sykar]

I am still trying to figure that out.

 

[pippin]

The most interesting and somewhat surprising result I'm seeing so far is the immersion into the protagonist's role one, which is receiving a considerable number of votes.

I certainly do enjoy taking on the role of a Geralt or what have you, but I would never consider that to be my primary attraction to an RPG. For those who chose/choose that, care to explain?

In my opinion, it has to do with feeling that I can take my own decisions, and there is not a path expected for me to follow. Geralt, JC Denton and the guy from Gothic are all "flat" characters, and you get to feel that everything you do is a choice you can make as a player and also as a character. It allows you to know a world at your own pace and without judgement. Compare this to many Bioware games when you can practically feel Gaider frowning when you make the "wrong" choice. Getting to "be" a character is not as important as what you can do with it, IMO.

 

[Sarastro]

The splitting of the party.
Time management of individual characters.
Planning travel ahead. You need lots of equipment, and the game has a time limit.

Sounds like an interesting game, I will check it out. Thank you.

 

[wyes gull]

It'd be unfair to not acknowledge these, which I loved to read as a kid, when mentioning rpgs. I was first drawn to them because they mirrored the ambience and fed my imagination in a similar way.

Why I play, though, is another issue. It's easy to be drawn to something and realize there's nothing holding you to it. Movies do it all the time.
-I pick them up because I enjoy the illusion that there's a place that exists outside of your character to whom he or she is irrelevant until you, the player, decide to do something about it. Other genres don't convey this. They try but the invisible walls are all too obvious. Green Hill doesn't exist, it's just a level for you to run past.
-I play them because they have a very strong main draw or multiple competent ones. Those can be the exploration, the writing or the combat.
-I replay because their aforementioned draws are built to cater to several character archetypes, each in a different fashion and afford multiple player choices in ways to tackle them. If they're not, are they really RPGs to begin with?

In essence: variable PC reactivity; player choice; world building; exploration; writing; combat.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

In my opinion, it has to do with feeling that I can take my own decisions, and there is not a path expected for me to follow. Geralt, JC Denton and the guy from Gothic are all "flat" characters, and you get to feel that everything you do is a choice you can make as a player and also as a character. It allows you to know a world at your own pace and without judgement. Compare this to many Bioware games when you can practically feel Gaider frowning when you make the "wrong" choice. Getting to "be" a character is not as important as what you can do with it, IMO.

For the games you like, you reference the in-game character, for the opposing position you reference a single developer, so I've no idea what you mean really. I've played games where Gaider has been lead writer and never felt any sense of 'frowning' over any choices, sometimes quite the opposite. Can you reply with something more general and less agenda-ridden? Sounds to me like you're the one frowning at someone giving more free choices than someone who gives you less choice but least a selection that doesn't offend you...?

 

[Crispy]

So far, character progression, escapism, and combat are leading the way. C&C is holding its own with storyfaggotry attempting to hang on.

 

[pippin]

In my opinion, it has to do with feeling that I can take my own decisions, and there is not a path expected for me to follow. Geralt, JC Denton and the guy from Gothic are all "flat" characters, and you get to feel that everything you do is a choice you can make as a player and also as a character. It allows you to know a world at your own pace and without judgement. Compare this to many Bioware games when you can practically feel Gaider frowning when you make the "wrong" choice. Getting to "be" a character is not as important as what you can do with it, IMO.

For the games you like, you reference the in-game character, for the opposing position you reference a single developer, so I've no idea what you mean really. I've played games where Gaider has been lead writer and never felt any sense of 'frowning' over any choices, sometimes quite the opposite. Can you reply with something more general and less agenda-ridden? Sounds to me like you're the one frowning at someone giving more free choices than someone who gives you less choice but least a selection that doesn't offend you...?

The thing is JCD was designed to be as flat as possible on purpose. The flat delivery of "what a shame" is not bad voice acting, the actor was told to say it in a flat manner because JCD is not meant to judge the player if he kills the girl's father. Consider Baldur's Gate. The best companions (sans Viconia) are the Good ones. The default party, as seen in BG2, is the Good one. Even in Mass Effect, you can't be truly evil, just Chaotic Neutral at best. I mentioned Bioware because for me they are the worst offenders when it comes to morality. In the case of Twitcher, Geralt is often faced with choices that put his witcher status and the neutrality of the faction in jeopardy, but it does not feel like the developers were tying to judge you because you sided with this or that faction. One of the reasons why Morality is broken in BG1+2 is because you can guess the devs wanted you to be "good".

 

[Zombra]

The most interesting and somewhat surprising result I'm seeing so far is the immersion into the protagonist's role one, which is receiving a considerable number of votes.
I certainly do enjoy taking on the role of a Geralt or what have you, but I would never consider that to be my primary attraction to an RPG. For those who chose/choose that, care to explain?

I voted for several things that were "kind of but not really"; this was one of them.

I like to, well, trigger warning, role-play in the most traditional sense. My game pieces behave as if they were not just game pieces, but people with motivations. When an NPC says hey, kill that man and I'll give you 200gp, I don't say, "Oh, 200gp, I'm supposed to do this," and then do it. I ask myself, does my character want to be a hired killer?

What does it mean to Chance the sniper to find clues about Ace's killer? Why would Geralt turn against the villagers to protect a witch? How does Ingrid the Wood Elf feel about the logging industry? Will she secretly become a serial killer, murdering lumberjacks all over Skyrim? (Yes.) The ability to not only ask these questions but find answers through gameplay is fascinating to me. No other genre of game comes close to this level of introspection.

 

[RepHope]

Exploration, character progression, sometimes choices and consequences when the developer can be bothered to put them in. Never understood how some people have asked for less control and want to be babysat by the developers in game-play or story.

Plus I fucking hate multiplayer in every other genre except strategy, which every other genre is turning towards putting the focus on. Least there are still some incredibly successful single-player RPG games out there.

 

[Zombra]

Also note that I didn't vote escapism because it's ridiculous to say that escapism is a particular feature of RPGs. All games are escapist. I didn't clock 10 hours of HunieCam Studio last week because of my healthy active social lifestyle.

 

[Crispy]

All games are escapist.

Disagree. Many games are all about competitiveness or about testing your real-world (twitch) skills. RPG's shouldn't be, IMO, and that's what separates them.

Driving games, for example, test your reaction times and ability to simulate driving a race car. This isn't really escapism; you're really just simulating what theoretically you could already do in the real world.

 

[pippin]

All games are escapist.

 

[Zombra]

Hmmm. Food for thought.

 

[Chainsaw Gutsfuck]

I mentioned Bioware because for me they are the worst offenders when it comes to morality. In the case of Twitcher, Geralt is often faced with choices that put his witcher status and the neutrality of the faction in jeopardy, but it does not feel like the developers were tying to judge you because you sided with this or that faction. One of the reasons why Morality is broken in BG1+2 is because you can guess the devs wanted you to be "good".

What kind of choices did you felt that they were missing from these games? I don't see how exactly they would be offering evil choices in Mass Effect for example, since your main goal there is to stop Saren. Wouldn't make much sense to let Sheppard going around killing children, no? I would understand if you wanted more choices, like joining the enemy instead of opposing him, but I don't see how the lack of such choice legitimises the criticism of Bioware as the worst offenders when it comes to morality. Besides, if these games lack truly evil paths, then how it can be that they also pass judgment on you? I feel like I am not grasping your point of view here.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Initially imagination driven escapism on my 8-bitter, and because I don't have the reflexes or patience to play most other types of games. If I didn't play RPGs I probably wouldn't play games at all. Maybe the odd adventure.

 

[Zombra]

I feel like a lot of RPGs are slanted towards "good". They'll put in a good path and an evil path, but the evil path won't be very fleshed out, or it will cause contradictions later on in the story, stuff like this. In cases like these, evil feels like the "wrong" path because the devs didn't bother making it interesting or consistent.

Note that I think it's stupid to expect an evil puppy kicking path in every game, or that for every obvious thing you should want to do, there will also be an exact opposite. For me it's quite sufficient to have multiple paths that are distinct from one another and have visible consequences. Like in Mass Effect, how they did it was fine; they didn't have a "good path" and an "evil path" - they had "universe saving good guy hero who's law-abiding and helpful" and "universe saving good guy hero who's kind of a fuckface about it". To me that's still an interesting choice.

I guess I am more interested in all paths being reasonable over good and evil silliness. Chaotic Stupid just doesn't make for good writing, generally.