For me the balance should be 60% char and it's earned skills and gear. It's gotta mean something. 40% skill and it's fun seeing a really skilled player still having a chance to take out a top geared player. Just my two cents.
PS hate Twitch combat, only play it when I'm itching for a new MMO and it's my only option. I don't find it hard, I just get board of clicking dodge every 3rd key stroke. Does not feel epic at all.
This thread shows me that people seem to have an incredibly limited view of what "RPG" means. I don't see the term RPG and just instantly relate it to D&D and dice rolls. Sure, that's how RPGs started out being played, but nowhere do I see "role-playing" as meaning you have to have randomness and pure luck predicating your every action.
Role-playing can mean a whole heck of a lot more things than stats and dice-rolling. It's such a vague term that you could even argue that playing any character in any video game ever made is role-playing.
The RPG genre has certainly expanded to include more play-styles/rule-sets over the years since games like Pool of Radiance and such, but an action-RPG is just as much an RPG as any other old-school RPG in my book.
I don't see randomness as part of RPG. I see it as a simplified way to account for variables too great to program in.
The same was true for tabletop RPGs. We could not account for windage shooting arrows or guns. So we rolled dice for that. We could account for weapon or armor wearing out, so we rolled dice for that. We could not account for loose rocks or pebbles, so die rolls took care of that.
For me, randomness is not about RPG but rather about what can not be easily accounted for.
PS: Unlike some posters who think we humans (or other races) are robots that consistently do the same action exactly the same way each and every time, RNG adds a bit of randomness, just like real life.
You are role playing a character, so the character's abilities should be more important than the one controlling him/her/it. That said, the player's abilities are very important as well. The reverse would equate to a typical arcade / console game.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I think the balance really should depend on the type of game in question, if we are going to focus on PVP games, then perhaps the focus should be more on the players actual skills, vs character skills. For PVE orientated games, i don't think either should have priority, for Single player games, you can get away with character skill focus, though most of them have difficulty settings that gradually shift the focus away from character skill to player skill. So depends on the game really.
The player is the most important. But there are different types of player skill, they don't have to be twitch/reaction skills.
If what matters only are the character statistics, you aren't roleplaying the character, the character is just roleplaying you... PnP RPGs and videogame RPGs are very different (even board game RPGs are different).
I don't get how some say that depending on character skills doesn't depend on player skill - it is the player choosing what skills and when to use them. Unless all the skills are passive/item stats and RNG roles.
That is why we have resources (CDs, mana, etc) in game to manage. And even games that rely on timing, the window of time can be adjusted in a way that the average human will succeed the large majority of the time.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Tactics and strategy are player skills, but skill in how to use the character's skills, not when to click a button or key.
Hiding behind a rock is a much different skill than tapping a button/key fast four times. Having a cleric know when to use the massive party heal is a skill much different than AoE'ing the snot out of everything.
MMORPGshould be character skills, 100% for me. MMOFPS, sure "manly" character clickie skills rule.
You still have to press the button. It is just a question of how much time the game gives you. That is the main difference - in a more action focused game the game will give you less time than in a less action oriented game, to recognize what skill/what action to use and then do the action by pressing the button.
Maybe VR will change things, but then it still depends on you activating a sensor of some kind or the other.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Progression is important to feel a sense of advancement.
But then you're going to fight some new challenge, evenly matched with your current progression, and in that fight Player Skill will be the deciding factor.
If player skill isn't the deciding factor, then playing the game will feel pointless -- who wants to waste time in a game where all you do is walk up and activate auto-attack and your character's superior stats carry him through to an automatic victory? While that's appropriate to a certain genre (idle games), it's not appropriate for a full RPG. Like most genres, RPGs live or die based on their ability to provide interesting decisions. Without interesting decisions, there's very little interest left.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMORPGs are about character building. "Player skill" can only be determined in a game where both players are on equal footing, like a FPS. The industry has tried to merge RPGs and FPSs with action combat and it's made me lose interest.
I say BAH to title. player skill or character skill is just a glorious rewrite of code generated skill (character skill) or button mashing skill (player skill). Character skill usually comes from spending epic time in a game = epic win. So character skill is usually decided by how much time you have wasted (haha....take that) in the game. Now player skill is in essense to hit the right button at the right time (kinda like hitting a marker which goes up and down at the same time). Both skill required time (takes time to learn which button to hit). Now the player skill has extra a dimension on hitting the right button at the right time. Knowledge gives what button is right, but epicness comes from timing, usually milliseconds. Playerskill is thereby more advanced than character, but it really is just about hitting the right button at the right time.
MMORPGs are about character building. "Player skill" can only be determined in a game where both players are on equal footing, like a FPS. The industry has tried to merge RPGs and FPSs with action combat and it's made me lose interest.
As I pointed out, all the best RPGs are about both. (Unless you honestly believe Progress Quest is the greatest RPG ever.)
Player skill exists in any situation where decisions matter (not just when it's two players fighting.) The amount of player skill that matters will increase relative to the depth of a game (depth is essentially skill cap.)
Decisions aren't just action, as obviously someone can be skilled at Chess. This means that blending RPGs with action gameplay is entirely unrelated to whether player skill should be important. All the best RPGs through history have been like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, or WOW where the progression basically ends up determining which monsters you fight -- and against "equal footing" monsters, skill is the deciding factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Really subjective argument and it entirely depends on where you're going with the skill depth and components you're talking about.
In simple terms, it entirely depends on the type of game you're making. Is it a skills-challenge game where each decision puts player reflex and technique first? Is it a stats driven game where player decision making is marginalized by automated ability calculations?
Any permutation of these will yield varying degrees of player interactivity and degrees to which player skill versus character skill matters.
And Axe, FFT, Disgaea, and WoW are all known as games that are dominantly stat driven which you are capable of (if not intentionally doing so) out-leveling the content regularly. Yes, player input is important, but that's true of any interactive medium. With RPGs you're talking about a genre that marginalizes player skill challenges and offloads it into character skill checks.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
MMORPGs are about character building. "Player skill" can only be determined in a game where both players are on equal footing, like a FPS. The industry has tried to merge RPGs and FPSs with action combat and it's made me lose interest.
As I pointed out, all the best RPGs are about both. (Unless you honestly believe Progress Quest is the greatest RPG ever.)
Player skill exists in any situation where decisions matter (not just when it's two players fighting.) The amount of player skill that matters will increase relative to the depth of a game (depth is essentially skill cap.)
Decisions aren't just action, as obviously someone can be skilled at Chess. This means that blending RPGs with action gameplay is entirely unrelated to whether player skill should be important. All the best RPGs through history have been like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, or WOW where the progression basically ends up determining which monsters you fight -- and against "equal footing" monsters, skill is the deciding factor.
You're missing the point.
When "player skill" is mentioned in video game discussions, it usually refers to "twitch skills" (like eye/hand co-ordination, i.e. physical dexterity in manipulating both mouse and keyboard). That's why "action combat" is said to require more "player skill" than tab-targeting.
That's why "player skill" is vital in FPS games.
OTOH, in a RPG, my characters's ability to dodge should not depend on my reflexes or keyboard skillz, it should be determined by my character's state of development in the game world.
A player's ability to make decisions and understand game mechanics is a different matter entirely. That depends on the player's intelligence, comprehension and the ability to retain information.
MMORPGs are about character building. "Player skill" can only be determined in a game where both players are on equal footing, like a FPS. The industry has tried to merge RPGs and FPSs with action combat and it's made me lose interest.
As I pointed out, all the best RPGs are about both. (Unless you honestly believe Progress Quest is the greatest RPG ever.)
Player skill exists in any situation where decisions matter (not just when it's two players fighting.) The amount of player skill that matters will increase relative to the depth of a game (depth is essentially skill cap.)
Decisions aren't just action, as obviously someone can be skilled at Chess. This means that blending RPGs with action gameplay is entirely unrelated to whether player skill should be important. All the best RPGs through history have been like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, or WOW where the progression basically ends up determining which monsters you fight -- and against "equal footing" monsters, skill is the deciding factor.
You're missing the point.
When "player skill" is mentioned in video game discussions, it usually refers to "twitch skills" (like eye/hand co-ordination, i.e. physical dexterity in manipulating both mouse and keyboard). That's why "action combat" is said to require more "player skill" than tab-targeting.
That's why "player skill" is vital in FPS games.
OTOH, in a RPG, my characters's ability to dodge should not depend on my reflexes or keyboard skillz, it should be determined by my character's state of development in the game world.
A player's ability to make decisions and understand game mechanics is a different matter entirely. That depends on the player's intelligence, comprehension and the ability to retain information.
I think you're missing the point.
Twitch skills is just one form of player skill. To me, player skill is a combination of making the best decisions (brain) and executing those decisions (muscle). Twitch is limited on the brain side and expanded on the muscle side, but together they still form player skill.
I can't even think of a game that involves no player skill. I guess there must be something out there where you make no decisions at all and combat is purely automated, but that just sounds like a movie....
So where does character skill come in? For me, character skill is all about determining the balance before player skill kicks in. If my character is massively overpowered then the balance is tipped in my favour, but some degree of player skill is still required, even if it is only enabling auto-attack. The best games work hard to ensure that character skill results in balanced fights so that player skill becomes the determining factor.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Most of the time the point of calling out "player skill" is because the content is a form of skill challenge such as twitch, strategy, etc where player input is the primary factor of success.
Your example of "only enabling auto-attack" is the example of the flip-side where player skill challenges has been marginalized by character skills. The player's aren't making tough strategic, reflexive, or other decisions, they are relying on the capability of their character as the dominant means of success.
Which isn't a bad thing when the character skill set is varied and has enough complexity to do more than just hit stuff (for example skill checks in D&D).
Saying any and all decision making is some form of player skill, while semantically true, is not a useful argument and fails to grasp the point that there is a distinction between games where "character skills" are the dominant means to overcoming a game's challenges versus interactive skill challenges being the dominant means.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
When "player skill" is mentioned in video game discussions, it usually refers to "twitch skills" (like eye/hand co-ordination, i.e. physical dexterity in manipulating both mouse and keyboard). That's why "action combat" is said to require more "player skill" than tab-targeting.
That's why "player skill" is vital in FPS games.
OTOH, in a RPG, my characters's ability to dodge should not depend on my reflexes or keyboard skillz, it should be determined by my character's state of development in the game world.
A player's ability to make decisions and understand game mechanics is a different matter entirely. That depends on the player's intelligence, comprehension and the ability to retain information.
Well there's no way to stop people from being wrong about what skill is.
If they want to claim being a Chess grandmaster takes zero skill (because it requires zero twitch skill,) there's just no way to stop them from being wrong.
All I can do is discuss what skill actually is: decision-making and execution.
Decision-making is tactical skill and strategic skill. It's deciding what to do. (This happens even in very brief moments, like if I decide to block vs. dragon punch in a particular moment during a Street Fighter 5 match.)
Execution is twitch skill. It's the execution of your decision.
Chess is heavily weighted on strategic skill, but has basically no execution skill. Starcraft involves a large amount of all types of skill.
RPGs run a spectrum between chess-like Tactical RPGs where execution isn't a significant challenge and fast-paced Action RPGs like Diablo where you do end up manually dodging some attacks.) But all successful RPGs involve skill. It's not always the deepest skill, but it's always there.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When "player skill" is mentioned in video game discussions, it usually refers to "twitch skills" (like eye/hand co-ordination, i.e. physical dexterity in manipulating both mouse and keyboard). That's why "action combat" is said to require more "player skill" than tab-targeting.
That's why "player skill" is vital in FPS games.
OTOH, in a RPG, my characters's ability to dodge should not depend on my reflexes or keyboard skillz, it should be determined by my character's state of development in the game world.
A player's ability to make decisions and understand game mechanics is a different matter entirely. That depends on the player's intelligence, comprehension and the ability to retain information.
Decision-making is tactical skill and strategic skill.
"Saying any and all decision making is some form of player skill, while semantically true, is not a useful argument and fails to grasp the point that there is a distinction between games where "character skills" are the dominant means to overcoming a game's challenges versus interactive skill challenges being the dominant means."
Lets not act like semantics are a meaningful argument to be making here and try and address the topic instead.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
IDK if i would say player skill matters MOST but certainly should be there.Problem is MOST people THINK this has only one meaning and that is to be god at twitch combat.Even with twitch based games i find more skill in the strategy i use ,not just with my twitch skills and it is the same idea i use in real life sports as well.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Decision making skills are irrelevant if your twitch skills are bad. Your opponent won't have a clue that you knew exactly how to beat him, except you couldn't hit the right combo's fast enough. To that opponent, you simply have no skill !
In a RPG, your character learns abilities that you as a player can use to overcome game challenges. If your character hasn't learned how to dodge fast, no amount of button-mashing is going to change that.
In a FPS game, your character's abilities are traditionally static and your twitch skills determine your success in the game.
Tactics and strategy are player skills, but skill in how to use the character's skills, not when to click a button or key.
Hiding behind a rock is a much different skill than tapping a button/key fast four times. Having a cleric know when to use the massive party heal is a skill much different than AoE'ing the snot out of everything.
MMORPGshould be character skills, 100% for me. MMOFPS, sure "manly" character clickie skills rule.
You still have to press the button. It is just a question of how much time the game gives you. That is the main difference - in a more action focused game the game will give you less time than in a less action oriented game, to recognize what skill/what action to use and then do the action by pressing the button.
Maybe VR will change things, but then it still depends on you activating a sensor of some kind or the other.
Yes, but I am talking about using the character's skills, like when to launch that AoE or when to Mezz the mobs, not really when to block or swing. I miss auto-attack, which has many players here cringing. Yes, there is button pushing, but it's not the same, in my mind.
I'll never know about VR as I have zero interest in that. I'll probably be dead by the time it is feasible.
Comments
The same was true for tabletop RPGs. We could not account for windage shooting arrows or guns. So we rolled dice for that. We could account for weapon or armor wearing out, so we rolled dice for that. We could not account for loose rocks or pebbles, so die rolls took care of that.
For me, randomness is not about RPG but rather about what can not be easily accounted for.
PS: Unlike some posters who think we humans (or other races) are robots that consistently do the same action exactly the same way each and every time, RNG adds a bit of randomness, just like real life.
VG
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
For PVE orientated games, i don't think either should have priority, for Single player games, you can get away with character skill focus, though most of them have difficulty settings that gradually shift the focus away from character skill to player skill.
So depends on the game really.
But there are different types of player skill, they don't have to be twitch/reaction skills.
If what matters only are the character statistics, you aren't roleplaying the character, the character is just roleplaying you... PnP RPGs and videogame RPGs are very different (even board game RPGs are different).
I don't get how some say that depending on character skills doesn't depend on player skill - it is the player choosing what skills and when to use them. Unless all the skills are passive/item stats and RNG roles.
That is why we have resources (CDs, mana, etc) in game to manage. And even games that rely on timing, the window of time can be adjusted in a way that the average human will succeed the large majority of the time.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
It is just a question of how much time the game gives you.
That is the main difference - in a more action focused game the game will give you less time than in a less action oriented game, to recognize what skill/what action to use and then do the action by pressing the button.
Maybe VR will change things, but then it still depends on you activating a sensor of some kind or the other.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Progression is important to feel a sense of advancement.
But then you're going to fight some new challenge, evenly matched with your current progression, and in that fight Player Skill will be the deciding factor.
If player skill isn't the deciding factor, then playing the game will feel pointless -- who wants to waste time in a game where all you do is walk up and activate auto-attack and your character's superior stats carry him through to an automatic victory? While that's appropriate to a certain genre (idle games), it's not appropriate for a full RPG. Like most genres, RPGs live or die based on their ability to provide interesting decisions. Without interesting decisions, there's very little interest left.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
player skill or character skill is just a glorious rewrite of code generated skill (character skill) or button mashing skill (player skill). Character skill usually comes from spending epic time in a game = epic win. So character skill is usually decided by how much time you have wasted (haha....take that) in the game. Now player skill is in essense to hit the right button at the right time (kinda like hitting a marker which goes up and down at the same time). Both skill required time (takes time to learn which button to hit). Now the player skill has extra a dimension on hitting the right button at the right time. Knowledge gives what button is right, but epicness comes from timing, usually milliseconds.
Playerskill is thereby more advanced than character, but it really is just about hitting the right button at the right time.
Player skill exists in any situation where decisions matter (not just when it's two players fighting.) The amount of player skill that matters will increase relative to the depth of a game (depth is essentially skill cap.)
Decisions aren't just action, as obviously someone can be skilled at Chess. This means that blending RPGs with action gameplay is entirely unrelated to whether player skill should be important. All the best RPGs through history have been like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, or WOW where the progression basically ends up determining which monsters you fight -- and against "equal footing" monsters, skill is the deciding factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In simple terms, it entirely depends on the type of game you're making.
Is it a skills-challenge game where each decision puts player reflex and technique first?
Is it a stats driven game where player decision making is marginalized by automated ability calculations?
Any permutation of these will yield varying degrees of player interactivity and degrees to which player skill versus character skill matters.
And Axe, FFT, Disgaea, and WoW are all known as games that are dominantly stat driven which you are capable of (if not intentionally doing so) out-leveling the content regularly. Yes, player input is important, but that's true of any interactive medium. With RPGs you're talking about a genre that marginalizes player skill challenges and offloads it into character skill checks.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
When "player skill" is mentioned in video game discussions, it usually refers to "twitch skills" (like eye/hand co-ordination, i.e. physical dexterity in manipulating both mouse and keyboard). That's why "action combat" is said to require more "player skill" than tab-targeting.
That's why "player skill" is vital in FPS games.
OTOH, in a RPG, my characters's ability to dodge should not depend on my reflexes or keyboard skillz, it should be determined by my character's state of development in the game world.
A player's ability to make decisions and understand game mechanics is a different matter entirely. That depends on the player's intelligence, comprehension and the ability to retain information.
Tab Target Old School Style MMORPG I vote the character skill...
Twitch skills is just one form of player skill. To me, player skill is a combination of making the best decisions (brain) and executing those decisions (muscle). Twitch is limited on the brain side and expanded on the muscle side, but together they still form player skill.
I can't even think of a game that involves no player skill. I guess there must be something out there where you make no decisions at all and combat is purely automated, but that just sounds like a movie....
So where does character skill come in? For me, character skill is all about determining the balance before player skill kicks in. If my character is massively overpowered then the balance is tipped in my favour, but some degree of player skill is still required, even if it is only enabling auto-attack. The best games work hard to ensure that character skill results in balanced fights so that player skill becomes the determining factor.
Most of the time the point of calling out "player skill" is because the content is a form of skill challenge such as twitch, strategy, etc where player input is the primary factor of success.
Your example of "only enabling auto-attack" is the example of the flip-side where player skill challenges has been marginalized by character skills. The player's aren't making tough strategic, reflexive, or other decisions, they are relying on the capability of their character as the dominant means of success.
Which isn't a bad thing when the character skill set is varied and has enough complexity to do more than just hit stuff (for example skill checks in D&D).
Saying any and all decision making is some form of player skill, while semantically true, is not a useful argument and fails to grasp the point that there is a distinction between games where "character skills" are the dominant means to overcoming a game's challenges versus interactive skill challenges being the dominant means.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If they want to claim being a Chess grandmaster takes zero skill (because it requires zero twitch skill,) there's just no way to stop them from being wrong.
All I can do is discuss what skill actually is: decision-making and execution.
- Decision-making is tactical skill and strategic skill. It's deciding what to do. (This happens even in very brief moments, like if I decide to block vs. dragon punch in a particular moment during a Street Fighter 5 match.)
- Execution is twitch skill. It's the execution of your decision.
Chess is heavily weighted on strategic skill, but has basically no execution skill. Starcraft involves a large amount of all types of skill.RPGs run a spectrum between chess-like Tactical RPGs where execution isn't a significant challenge and fast-paced Action RPGs like Diablo where you do end up manually dodging some attacks.) But all successful RPGs involve skill. It's not always the deepest skill, but it's always there.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Lets not act like semantics are a meaningful argument to be making here and try and address the topic instead.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
In a RPG, your character learns abilities that you as a player can use to overcome game challenges. If your character hasn't learned how to dodge fast, no amount of button-mashing is going to change that.
In a FPS game, your character's abilities are traditionally static and your twitch skills determine your success in the game.
I'll never know about VR as I have zero interest in that. I'll probably be dead by the time it is feasible.
VG
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver