Would classic RPGs be viable without the random factor?

[mondblut]

Determinism is fucking boring.

 

[mondblut]

That's pretty much how Gothic works, and it works just fine.

...for an action game.

Gothic is glorified Tomb Raider.

 

[Sigourn]

That's pretty much how Gothic works, and it works just fine.

...for an action game.

Gothic is glorified Tomb Raider.

cRPGs are glorified RPGs, but with a fraction of what makes them fun.

 

[mondblut]

cRPGs are glorified RPGs, but with a fraction of what makes them fun.

Having no friends has its drawbacks. On a positive side, no one is going to pester you asking to loan them money they will never repay.

 

[Bohrain]

But the choices in combat could still be completely deterministic (things hit certainly, no damage ranges etc.),

But why? What purpose does that serve? Yeah, OK, you can randomize encounters*, but what does it help if you know a certain enemy will die from a certain number of hits from a certain weapon? It just cuts out so much out the excitement just to.. what... ?

*Which generally means that you either just get the same encounters that were designed for this purpose over and over again so that's not really a great idea. Nobody would sit and design multiple encounters to be used just as random choices in one area.

And sure, just as you mentioned in your previous post randomness shouldn't take the player agency out of the equation. Not more than determinism does at least lul.
Only Sawyerist autists think randomness is an evil and fixed value.

Also, RPG combat will never be chess, because:

- Who the hell wants what? Nobody wants to play a chess game every time a combat starts in an RPG
- You can't turn an RPG system into chess. Too many variables. The only way to do it is to reduce it to the amount of variables that chess has. Hurray, only 6 types of creatures because IT'Z CHESS!

So... lose complexity for the sake of feeling more monocled because your game is compared to chess?

The question is what sort of scenarios and optimal strategies you end up with after a dice roll.
Let's say the optimal play is casting spell x on enemy. Assume the spell misses, what kind of scenario you end up in? If the optimal play in the new scenario is merely trying the same thing again, I'd argue the uncertainty adds nothing to the experience.

 

[Sigourn]

My issue with dicerolls is that they make battles completely unpredictable. Nothing stops a party from getting completely slaughtered to an enemy, and on a reload completely slaughter the same enemy. Some randomness is cool, but that randomness is very much present in action RPGs already, Gothic being a good example: mis-timed dodging, blocking, attacking. But at least in Gothic you know that properly pulling off attacks is entirely on you, and not on a random number that, for all you know, may fuck you up on three consecutive reloads.

Removing dicerolls requires a complete overhaul of classic RPGs, because they would be boring as fuck otherwise.

 

[FeelTheRads]

My issue with dicerolls is that they make battles completely unpredictable. Nothing stops a party from getting completely slaughtered to an enemy, and on a reload completely slaughter the same enemy.

Where? Examples, please. Are you saying all dice rolls do that?

Gothic being a good example: mis-timed dodging, blocking, attacking. But at least in Gothic you know that properly pulling off attacks is entirely on you,

And that's why combat in Gothic is more action than RPG.
In an RPG your input in combat should stop at tactics (positioning, who to attack etc). The moment you're "pulling of attacks" with your keyboard skills you're not discussing RPGs anymore. And if you want that in RPGs, then you don't want RPGs.

 

[Sigourn]

Where? Examples, please. Are you saying all dice rolls do that?

Icewind Dale. I've lost my entire party to ONE Beholder because my rolls were bad, and I've beaten TWO Beholders with the same party, same strategy, all alive, because my rolls were good. Sorry, but I'm very much not into that kind of RNG shitfest.

And that's why combat in Gothic is more action than RPG.
In an RPG your input in combat should stop at tactics (positioning, who to attack etc). The moment you're "pulling of attacks" with your keyboard skills you're not discussing RPGs anymore. And if you want that in RPGs, then you don't want RPGs.

Why? Because you say so? cRPGs are already not RPGs. All you are arguing is "Gothic is not an RPG because it offers less "RPG-ness" than cRPGs", to which I could reply: "cRPGs are not RPGs because they offer less "RPG-ness" than tabletop RPGs".

 

[Shinji]

When you start taking the random variables away, you also take away a sense of danger that is important for a CRPG. When you take away too many random variables, you begin to leave the territory of CRPGs and instead start entering into the action genre for real-time games, or visual novels for turn-based. The random variables are essential to what a CRPG is, especially when you consider that CRPGs are supposed to be emulating the tabletop RPG experience.

Exactly.
The effect randomness has on the player is of making him experience uncertainty. If a person is certain about the result of something, she will take that for granted and will probably not pay too much attention. With uncertainty, the outcome of a situation is unknown, and if it is something we care about, we want to know what will be the resulting outcome (e.g. in horror, one of the possible outcomes is always something very unpleasant, and since it may or may not happen, the person will always be on edge)

In games which player skill predominates, it's the player who's solely responsible for a successful outcome. That is, if he's skilled in performing a specific activity he'll probably succeed, unless his opponent is more skilled than him.
As such, any variable/uncertainty that can negatively or positively affect the player's performance should be removed (if possible), as a way to ensure that the only factor to be taken into account is player skill, thus making the resulting outcome "fair".

In role playing games though, it's not player skill that usually predominates, but character skill. So the chances of success in a specific situation depends of how skilled the *character* is in performing an activity.

Usually the more player skill-based a game is, the more simple its activity also is. All of those player skill-based games require the player to engage in activities that usually require good hand-eye coordination, with little time to think. With such a small amount of time to react, the activity must be simple, not complex by any means.

In character skill-based games, the player depends on his character's skill to succeed. Since the player does not perform the activity, he usually takes the role of taking decisions for his character -- thus less time spent "reacting", more time spent planning.
And since the player is not his character, it makes sense to have some metric to determine how skilled a character is, and that's why we have skills and numbers -- these enable the game to acknowledge what a certain character is good at. After all, a computer game is nothing but an approximation, not the real deal.

As such, character skill = chance of success.

So the more skilled the character, the higher the chances of success, be it in stealing, killing, hiding, persuading or whatever. The less skilled, the higher the chances of failure. And yes, sometimes even high skilled characters should be allowed to fail, and low skilled to succeed. (One thing to note is that not everything should be random, like eating or sleeping, unless under special circumstances such as when sick)

It makes sense, doesn't it? If my character sucks at stealing, the chances that he fails should probably be really high. That's why to compensate, a lot of games had parties of characters. Each character could be good at different things, an so each one would balance out the other's inabilities.

This problem affects mostly single character games. There's no one to compensate for the player character's inabilities, and thus developers usually allow him to be a jack of all trades by default.

 

[Elemental_wanamingo]

Rng in RPGs is a simplification. Especially in turn based games rng is supposed to contain all the variables we don't see on screen. But the problem is we don't see any representation of those variables. We just see two guys standing next to each other. Then we get a hit or miss when we try to do something. How the hell can you miss a stationary target so close? The reasons are not shown. We don't see any movement because in all turn based rpgs you either move OR attack. Never both at the same time. We donät aim. We throw a dice. It is harder to hit moving target than something sitting still. But all turn based rng represents fights as static environments. As such the rng itself is just a probability factor that changes with range. It is not at all like what we think it is. Rng is not represeation of real life unknowns and knowns but a simple game mechanic that has nothing to do with real life.

This is why rng is not representation of real life probabilities in RPGs. It is combination of numbers where it is really just range multiplier, weapon multiplier, player skill multiplier that change one base probability number. It is not situation specific skill based event like all real life actions. It is a statistical probability where you take infinite amount of specific situations and work out a generic averaged number and then make it random dice roll.

But the system is what it is. In the end one of the problems is not the rng. But the binary nature of it. Hit or miss. One way to combat this could be variance. For example a 95% hit chance should never have 5% miss. Instead a bad hit should be something like less damage. But in the end the turn based combat needs to somehow add movement, aiming and dodging so at least the rng numbers make sense. Fiddling with the rng chance is not enough. One way is to add player states. If you are aiming you have high chance and variance to hit. But your dodge is low because you are stationary and focused on one thing. It makes the system more intuitive when all this info is available. Player does not need to assume he is aiming at standing stationary target. He can see the reasons exactly why something is something.

One big problem with rng is that is a statistical probability of multiple attempts averaged into one attempt. When rng is used for one single event it becomes all about luck. Rng needs multiple attempts and repetition to work. A machine gun with each bullet having 95% hit chance works fine because the luck averages out when you make a 8 bullet burst at an opponent. But a sniper rifle doesn't work because it is one event. It is always about luck. Variance can help but not every sniper rifle shot can hit or your weapon balance is off.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Where? Examples, please. Are you saying all dice rolls do that?

Icewind Dale. I've lost my entire party to ONE Beholder because my rolls were bad, and I've beaten TWO Beholders with the same party, same strategy, all alive, because my rolls were good. Sorry, but I'm very much not into that kind of RNG shitfest.

And you did the exact same things, it was just the rolls that determined the outcome?

Well, could be I guess, I don't think this is such a big issue. The kind of randomness that's present in games like IWD fuels the countless way it they can be approached and played.
And no, I don't care about the autists crying that they found the perfect build on the internet and everybody should play only that because it's the only way to be played. They can go kill themselves.

And that's why combat in Gothic is more action than RPG.
In an RPG your input in combat should stop at tactics (positioning, who to attack etc). The moment you're "pulling of attacks" with your keyboard skills you're not discussing RPGs anymore. And if you want that in RPGs, then you don't want RPGs.

Why? Because you say so? cRPGs are already not RPGs. All you are arguing is "Gothic is not an RPG because it offers less "RPG-ness" than cRPGs", to which I could reply: "cRPGs are not RPGs because they offer less "RPG-ness" than tabletop RPGs".

Yes, because I say so, and I know more than some newfag.
And also because, it's a core part of RPGs that the character build and tactics should determine outcomes. Not your dexterity.

cRPGs are what they are. What, now we should move them into action game territory just because newfags say so?

So, my reply is "cRPGs are cRPGs, not action games". Or "Fuck you, go play other games."

 

[Sigourn]

And you did the exact same things, it was just the rolls that determined the outcome?

Yep. I like some randomness, but when it is so HUGE it becomes a pain in the ass. Especially when Beholders have those fucking Death rays and the like.

And also because, it's a core part of RPGs that the character build and tactics should determine outcomes. Not your dexterity.

But Gothic isn't an RPG. It is a computer RPG. It is a core part of RPGs that you should have a lot of room to interact with the environment and other characters, and yet that doesn't happen in cRPGs.

Gothic is an action cRPG, but a cRPG nonetheless.

 

[ProphetSword]

If your low level party can kill the final boss or a strong enemy is not a weak party: it's a broken party that abuse some broken game mechanics, and you probally need to scumsave until the perfect roll allow you to kill the strong enemy.
If you don't even need to scumsave is even worse: the game is simply shit level of balance.

Spoken like someone who must have never taken on the trolls in the Old Rope Guild in Pool of Radiance with a 1st level party with no NPCs and still came out victorious.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It is a core part of RPGs that you should have a lot of room to interact with the environment and other characters, and yet that doesn't happen in cRPGs.

By that logic they can be anything just because they're not identical to PnP RPGs. Hey, let's change everything then! Because uhh uhh hurr durr no reason really, let's just change it lolol

I'm not saying Gothic is not an RPG. I'm saying introducing human dexterity is introducing action elements.

 

[FeelTheRads]

If your low level party can kill the final boss or a strong enemy is not a weak party: it's a broken party that abuse some broken game mechanics, and you probally need to scumsave until the perfect roll allow you to kill the strong enemy.
If you don't even need to scumsave is even worse: the game is simply shit level of balance.

Spoken like someone who must have never taken on the trolls in the Old Rope Guild in Pool of Radiance with a 1st level party with no NPCs and still came out victorious.

newfag so worried about balance, probably started out with PoE or some other shit, I wouldn't think he even knows what you're talking about.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Computer RPGs have only pseudorandom numbers, so this whole discussion appears misguided.

 

[Sigourn]

I'm not saying Gothic is not an RPG. I'm saying introducing human dexterity is introducing action elements.

the moment you're "pulling of attacks" with your keyboard skills you're not discussing RPGs anymore. And if you want that in RPGs, then you don't want RPGs.

So... which one is it?

 

[Elex]

Computer RPGs have only pseudorandom numbers, so this whole discussion appears misguided.

XCOM is a great example of that.

 

[Gulnar]

Exactly.
The effect randomness has on the player is of making him experience uncertainty.

But could not such a uncertainty introduced in another manner? For example, if, instead of having a RNG, why instead not relying on hidden informations from the player?
Obviously, there HAS to be a tiny bit of RNG at some point during a game, otherwise the result would be predetermined. But look at chess, for example; from a starting board, you cannot predict how the game will play, because nobody has yet done the first move. From there you can make assumptions, and from a certain point on, you can actually say what will happen; but at the very beginning this isn't possible.
The same could be achieved with a game that first creates, using RNG, the enemies you'll encounter, the equipment and so on, but whose mechanics are deterministic. Basically, a 'roguelike' with a deterministic system. Or by one where the decision of a AI are random-ish, but the system is deterministic; basically, a rts-like game, except it's not an rts, but a rpg.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I'm not saying Gothic is not an RPG. I'm saying introducing human dexterity is introducing action elements.

the moment you're "pulling of attacks" with your keyboard skills you're not discussing RPGs anymore. And if you want that in RPGs, then you don't want RPGs.

So... which one is it?

What the fuck, are you a retard? Oh wait, sorry, village idiot.

The second quote does not say Gothic is not an RPG. It says that if you want action elements in RPGs, then perhaps you don't want RPGs and you'd better look elsewhere. As in, if you appreciate Gothic for having combat outcome dependent on your dexterity then you don't appreciate it for being an RPG. Therefore: you're better off looking elsewhere.
Can you read?

 

[Sigourn]

What the fuck, are you a retard? Oh wait, sorry, village idiot.

Says the person that claims that if I want to be able to pull off my own attacks I suddenly don't want RPGs... but Gothic is an RPG, and I like Gothic.

You do know there's more to RPGs than just diceroll combat, right?

 

[VanDerVaals]

Computer RPGs have only pseudorandom numbers, so this whole discussion appears misguided.

XCOM is a great example of that.

Exactly - it eliminates savescumming in a smart way.

Pseudorandomness - that's a different kind of thing than - randomness, and it kinda eliminates some extreme situations. Think about it - when you grab a d20 and perform an infinite number of rolls (fawking mind blowing) 5% of your rolls will result in 1, right? But when you perform any countable number of rolls in a row - be it 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 etc. it IS possible, no matter how small the probability, that EVERY one of your roll will result in 1. Such event CAN happen in real life. And just thinking about getting 1 for the 1000000 time in a row is weirdly frightening...

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Dice rolls are the best for CRPGs. The problem developers face nowadays is two-fold.

A) Everyone wants to win, all the time, and
B) Everyone wants total control, all the time, over every outcome.

Gamers are control freaks that don't want to lose, ever, let alone lose to what they perceive to be a bad dice roll. So any RPG that has dice rolls nowadays will have the hottest topics on their Steam forum being "RNG is broken in this game" or "The game cheats" and so on.

Unpredictability makes things interesting and allows for unique and "emergent" outcomes. Playing Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition Trilogy w/ mods and challenge options right now and it's had more interesting, unpredictable encounters than most other RPGs combined so far. I've had good and bad outcomes, but it's always interesting and even more importantly, surprising. You are rewarded for building a good party, choosing intelligent, synergistic spells, equipment and tactics among your characters yet that doesn't guarantee a win. Far from it. And I'm loving it.

It's about risk management, etc..

 

[ProphetSword]

Icewind Dale. I've lost my entire party to ONE Beholder because my rolls were bad, and I've beaten TWO Beholders with the same party, same strategy, all alive, because my rolls were good. Sorry, but I'm very much not into that kind of RNG shitfest.

Don't know if you realized, but this is why Beholders are considered to be so dangerous. Because they can kill you instantly with one failed saving throw. That's the whole point.

Now, if you had told me that you rolled over a bunch of goblins at 10th level and then suddenly one regular goblin killed your 10th level party, I would agree that it was an RNG shitfest.

 

[Sigourn]

Don't know if you realized, but this is why Beholders are considered to be so dangerous. Because they can kill you instantly with one failed saving throw. That's the whole point.

Not that I mind, since I reload whenever they permanently kill a party member.