Would classic RPGs be viable without the random factor?

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[ProphetSword]

So, this seems to be about "Classic RPGs," according to the thread title and the poll. My question is, why is this even a question? You can't change "Classic RPGs," unless this is some strange usage of the word "Classic" that I wasn't previously aware of. Classic RPGs are already classic. Changing them would likely change the elements that made them classic, thereby rendering them non-classics.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Randomness is a fundamental component of RPG combat systems. Determinism is acceptable only in action-based systems, such as Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma, where it is desirable for the player's actions to completely determine whether attacks hit or miss, and likewise desirable for an enemy to fall to a predictable number of attacks, but even here it must be acknowledged that in switching to determinism (as with being dependent on the player's physical skill rather than character stats) the game is moving further away from the RPG ideal. In a turn-based, stat-driven system, determinism is anathema, contrary to the need for the player to revise tactics depending on whether randomized outcomes are unusually favorable or unfavorable, just as in the tactics games from which RPGs sprung.

 

[Trashos]

I do not agree that the result-has-to-depend-on-PC-stats argument is strong in our context (even though I too agree that the result has to depend significantly on PC stats). We want the result of combat to depend on PC stats, but we also accept (or favor) systems where the player's tactical intelligence affects the result. It is not very hard to imagine simple deterministic systems where the player has to consider the PC's stats and devise an appropriate tactic for the battle at hand.

One huge advantage of deterministic systems is that they reward good strategy/tactics 100% of the time. In a balanced battle, if you perform a genius tactical maneuver and line up the perfect shot, you 'll hit, kill, win. In RNG systems you probably will, but then again maybe not. Deterministic systems are more rewarding to good play.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Hobo Elf]

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.

I have to disagree. The input method of Gothic may be action-y, but the success of your characters output is mostly determined by stats and equipment. Taking spell scrolls outside of the equation since they are intended as cheat cards, you're not going to kill a Shadowbeast, Warg, Demon, Wraith or any other nasty enemy unless you're geared up and strong enough. Being skilled as a player helps in Gothic, but only up to a point.

 

[ProphetSword]

Randomness is a fundamental component of RPG combat systems.

how so

How is it not? Can you show me one classic RPG that doesn't have a form of randomness involved in its combat system?

 

[FeelTheRads]

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 are a fucking retard. Kill yourself.

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

Yes, you fucking retard, which is why I said Gothic is still an RPG despite having its combat outcome influenced by player dexterity.
Because stats still matter.
So, yes, it can still be an RPG despite having action elements. Doesn't mean we have to turn all RPGs into that, or turn Gothic into an even more action game that in is.
If you want that, you don't want RPGs. Period.
Maybe you want action RPGs or whatever. But that doesn't mean everything should follow this formula. Or that this is some kind of universal solution to problems that are really only in the heads of newfags which suspiciously started showing up along with the PoE and who are all, of course, master game designers, even better than Sawyer and all eager to fix them old and terrible games. Instead of fucking off and playing their newfag games.

Also the initial question was about determinism vs rolls. Then you came with your hurr durr but itz better to hit myself than my character loooool. Like there's only 50/50 random rolls and action combat. Nothing else.
You fucking retard.

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

Ah yes, the game would have been so much better if everything was predetermined, with a completely linear difficulty curve, because god forbid I might die to something and have to reload!
Guess Tigranes playing a party of 1 level characters shows what a bad game it is with all that randomness and unbalance.

Fucking newfags. Go play your newfag games. These games were not made for you and your newfag brains, therefore you have no place playing them.

 

[Sigourn]

You are a fucking retard. Kill yourself.

I'm not the one contradicting myself.

Yes, you fucking retard, which is why I said Gothic is still an RPG despite having its combat outcome influenced by player dexterity.
Because stats still matter.

So you acknowledge wanting more action-based combat doesn't mean you don't want a game to still remain an RPG. Good to know.

If you want that, you don't want RPGs. Period.
Maybe you want action RPGs or whatever.

But that doesn't mean everything should follow this formula. Or that this is some kind of universal solution to problems that are really only in the heads of newfags which suspiciously started showing up along with the PoE and who are all, of course, master game designers, even better than Sawyer and all eager to fix them old and terrible games. Instead of fucking off and playing their newfag games.

If you think classic RPGs are not heavily flawed in one way or another, you need to take off your nostalgia glasses.

Also the initial question was about determinism vs rolls. Then you came with your hurr durr but itz better to hit myself than my character loooool. Like there's only 50/50 random rolls and action combat. Nothing else.
You fucking retard.

Any game that works with random rolls means there's always the chance your character will miss an attack, though. Maybe you need to look at the games you are playing. I know that's been my experience with RPGs.

Fucking newfags. Go play your newfag games. These games were not made for you and your newfag brains, therefore you have no place playing them.

:ehue:

It's interesting how people systematically defend poorly designed RPGs. Poorly designed doesn't mean "difficult" or "easy", it really means "poorly designed".

 

[octavius]

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.

And still you are whining?

 

[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.

And still you are whining?

Of course, since reloading often is annoying.

 

[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...

Ok so everyone ignored this post...
What I was trying to say is that as long as the maximum chance to do something in PnP RPG is like 95%, then there's always a probability that you'll get that 5% result multiple times in a row. Your character can be an absolute beast, but the dice can fawk you up pretty easily. You might be POTENTIALLY good at something but the dice has the power to completely ruin you. And that's the problem of randomness in RPGs...

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I'm not even sure why anyone would want an RPG without some sort of random factor. It would be completely boring in combat if you auto-hit everything every time you swung a weapon and did a set amount of damage instead of a range of damage, you never had an option to have a critical hit or anything interesting. Imagine an RPG like that:

DM: You come across some goblins.
Player: I kill them.
DM: They all die due to you having high enough stats. Good job. But, there's a troll behind them you can't defeat with your stats, so he kills you. Ready to roll up a new character?

exactly. I am always completely baffled by this discussion. It seems to come up with millennials and younger for some reason. They seem very anti-RNG.... I have a brother who is 20 years younger than me, and he and all his friends go on and on in regards to this issue.

I think maybe they don't actually understand how computers or the combats systems work? I don't know. I don't get it. Combat in a game with no randomness is simply a puzzle with one solution. Its zork-- its an adventure game. There would be no point to having combat or levels or stats. You either do, or you don't. It would be tedious with no replayability, no tension, and no strategy beyond finding a way to make your number be high enough to win. I guess you could make a more complicated deterministic model like chess, but chess is boring and sucks.

I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose. I often hear them whine about losing 'only because the RNG sucks'. The losing makes them feel bad about themselves so they blame RNG to make themselves feel better. Then they decide RNG sucks, and if it did not exist they could be properly rewarded for their 'skilz' instead of being victimized by the RNG. I am just guessing though, I really don't get it..

 

[ProphetSword]

I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose. I often hear them whine about losing 'only because the RNG sucks'. The losing makes them feel bad about themselves so they blame RNG to make themselves feel better. Then they decide RNG sucks, and if it did not exist they could be properly rewarded for their 'skilz' instead of being victimized by the RNG. I am just guessing though, I really don't get it..

They need to suck it up and grow a pair.

I hate it when people think player skill should be equal to character skill or vice-versa. It's not the same thing. You might be quick, but your character could be clumsy oaf due to his stats. Or, you might be the clumsy oaf, but your character is quite skilled. In either case, the game should reflect what your character or characters are, and not what you are. To think otherwise misses the point of what RPGs are all about.

I don't get why people can completely suspend disbelief to play a half-dragon/half-drow-elf ninja mageblade chosen one of prophecy, but can't understand why their skill is not equal to the skill that their character possess, whether that skill is better or far worse. It's annoying as shit.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

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.

I think perhaps your issue here is you are taking what you see on the screen too literally--for instance 'missing' while in combat, or imagining that the characters are all just standing still during a turn based encounter.

These games are abstract- You can miss a guy at point blank range who appears to be 'not moving' because the game and the accompanied dice rolls are actually simulating the targets in motion, i.e. blocking, parrying etc, and not just sitting still waiting their turn. The game system and its rules are attempting to create a dynamic, chaotic, and fluid situation using abstraction and fog of war (randomness) . Believing that the targets are just sitting there is a literal interpretation of an abstract model.

 

[Sigourn]

I hate it when people think player skill should be equal to character skill or vice-versa. It's not the same thing. You might be quick, but your character could be clumsy oaf due to his stats. Or, you might be the clumsy oaf, but your character is quite skilled. In either case, the game should reflect what your character or characters are, and not what you are. To think otherwise misses the point of what RPGs are all about.

Ironically your character could be dumb as hell due to his stats, but he will always obey your superior sense of strategy and tactics. I think we need a new diceroll that makes your own characters disobey your orders in combat. Or better yet, make the game play itself! Nothing speaks "superior roleplaying" than a dumb character failing to obey basic tactics like using chokepoints against hordes of enemies.

I, for one, prefer the system where I can still lose, but at least I lose because I failed and not because the game threw a bad roll. Roleplaying goes beyond dicerolling, and you can still very much have an EXCELLENT cRPG without any unnecessary dicerolls. You just need to spice your game up by letting the player think outside the box as opposed to repeat the same things he has been doing for the last four decades.

 

[ProphetSword]

Ironically your character could be dumb as hell due to his stats, but he will always obey your superior sense of strategy and tactics. I think we need a new diceroll that makes your own characters disobey your orders in combat. Or better yet, make the game play itself! Nothing speaks "superior roleplaying" than a dumb character failing to obey basic tactics like using chokepoints against hordes of enemies.

Depends on the kind of game you're playing. If you're playing a proper CRPG that includes a party of characters, there is likely a leader who is calling the shots. Unless the character in question is a functional retard incapable of following simple instructions or tying his own shoelaces, there's no reason he cannot be a part of the strategy.

If you're playing someone who is dumb as rocks in a single-player CRPG, then combat is the least of your worries.

 

[Sigourn]

If you're playing someone who is dumb as rocks in a single-player CRPG, then combat is the least of your worries.

Fallout, for instance. Playing a dumb character means he should pretty much be unable to win the game, unless you roleplay some sort of retard savant that has great combat smarts but is functionality illiterate.

 

[ProphetSword]

What I was trying to say is that as long as the maximum chance to do something in PnP RPG is like 95%, then there's always a probability that you'll get that 5% result multiple times in a row. Your character can be an absolute beast, but the dice can fawk you up pretty easily. You might be POTENTIALLY good at something but the dice has the power to completely ruin you. And that's the problem of randomness in RPGs...

Which is sort of like real life in the regards that you can be an absolute master at something, but still have an off day and completely screw things up. A trapeze artist who has landed perfectly forty times in a row only has to screw up once to ruin his day or his life. And we've all had days where nothing we did would go right.

 

[octavius]

Ironically your character could be dumb as hell due to his stats, but he will always obey your superior sense of strategy and tactics. I think we need a new diceroll that makes your own characters disobey your orders in combat. Or better yet, make the game play itself! Nothing speaks "superior roleplaying" than a dumb character failing to obey basic tactics like using chokepoints against hordes of enemies.

Depends on the kind of game you're playing. If you're playing a proper CRPG that includes a party of characters, there is likely a leader who is calling the shots. Unless the character in question is a functional retard incapable of following simple instructions or tying his own shoelaces, there's no reason he cannot be a part of the strategy.

If you're not too bright, you are probably less inclined to question orders from your party leader.
And for a fighter type at least, I think experience, skill and instinct is more important than mental abilities.

 

[Trashos]

Combat in a game with no randomness is simply a puzzle with one solution. Its zork-- its an adventure game. There would be no point to having combat or levels or stats. You either do, or you don't. It would be tedious with no replayability, no tension, and no strategy beyond finding a way to make your number be high enough to win. I guess you could make a more complicated deterministic model like chess, but chess is boring and sucks.

Chess is a game that is still being played more than 1'000 years after its inception, and it currently has 100s of millions of fans. So we will have to disagree on that.

Also, what you are describing is not how chess, its variants, and other chess-like games necessarily work. There does not have to be a single solution. It is possible that there is theoretically an optimal solution (as far as proper chess is concerned, we don't know yet), but that optimal solution does not have to be the same one in all playthroughs. There is randomness and choice in chess/chess-like games too, just of a different nature (e.g. initial conditions).

I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose.

Exactly the opposite. When you lose in deterministic games, you have noone to blame but yourself.

 

[Dorateen]

A favorite anecdote of mine from Pool of Radiance; when we were preparing for the assault on Sokal Keep, our party picked up one of the hirelings from the training hall, an acolyte. Not having direct command of this character, the NPC was under AI control. During the massive battle in the temple, our party moved into a tactical position to hold the doorway of an adjacent room. However, the Acolyte had other ideas. While we hunkered down and withstood the overwhelming numbers disadvantage, he rushed forward into the face of hobgoblin and orc arrows.

Alas, the poor acolyte, who could not follow directions.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Combat in a game with no randomness is simply a puzzle with one solution. Its zork-- its an adventure game. There would be no point to having combat or levels or stats. You either do, or you don't. It would be tedious with no replayability, no tension, and no strategy beyond finding a way to make your number be high enough to win. I guess you could make a more complicated deterministic model like chess, but chess is boring and sucks.

Chess is a game that is still being played more than 1'000 years after its inception, and it currently has 100s of millions of fans. So we will have to disagree on that.

Also, what you are describing is not how chess, its variants, and other chess-like games necessarily work. There does not have to be a single solution. It is possible that there is theoretically an optimal solution (as far as proper chess is concerned, we don't know yet), but that optimal solution does not have to be the same one in all playthroughs. There is randomness and choice in chess/chess-like games too, just of a different nature (e.g. initial conditions).

I think some of this desire is stemming from their feelings being hurt when they lose.

Exactly the opposite. When you lose in deterministic games, you have noone to blame but yourself.

You are agreeing with me on the second point. I said my brother and his friends whine about RNG's sometimes in order to explain a failure.

Because of these 'unreserved losses' they have come to believe a game without RNG would be better, because then they would not have lost...... because of course the only reason they lost was due to the RNG cheating or perhaps having a 'bug'.

About chess, yes its popular, so is McDonalds and monopoly. The reason why chess would suck as an RPG combat system (IMO) is because the pieces (characters) are bland and static. I believe a deterministic system would also suffer from a lack of distinction as well as simplistic and generic tactics and abilities .

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[undecaf]

Fallout, for instance. Playing a dumb character means he should pretty much be unable to win the game

Why?

Low int impairs your learning and a lot of stuff is out of your reach because you just can't, but you can't go as low as to be a complete vegetable.

If I remember correctly you can even learn to speak normally during the game if the PC happen to be just a point (or 2 in Fallout 2) short of the threshold for normal dialog (can't remember if it was 3 or 4).

Even if you knew some tactics, it takes more to get your character to be able enough for that to pay off.