What's more important to me is how the characters skills are obtained. I'm not opposed to level-based RPG mechanics, I just greatly prefer the skill-based mechanics. The character feels more real and more mine if he is good because of the things I have chosen for him to do, not because his level got bigger and he's now better at everything regardless of what he did for that level.
As far as player skill goes I think it's important to have a balance. I'm not a competitive player so I'm not a huge fan of getting my butt kicked all the time because I don't play as often as somebody else or maybe I'm just not as good.
So really it's a balance. Pen & Paper RPGs you have imagination and dice rolls to decide how battles play out. In video games it's more restrictive so it feels like for a system to be interactive and fun, it's going to be a system that also depends on and improves upon a player's skill.
Should be 70/30 character skill over player skill. If you are one the greatest keyboard jockeys then you should be rewarded, but the supposedly training your character has should come into play.
A bit of both, but for any RPG the character needs to take the leading role otherwise it may as well be just another action game. Player skill should still come into it (e.g. a ninja playing dark souls is going to be better than my grandma), but having a higher level / better geared / better speced (for the situation) character should always be a significant advantage.
LoL, not to sound a bit vague, but it kind of depends on the game.
To be a little more specific, and it will probably annoy some people, an important thing to look for is RPG. If it's an RPG, you rely on the characters abilities, not yours, otherwise it's a video game.
After all, that's the purpose of having a character and stats anyway instead of just being yourself. Your character has rewire the ships stardrive, nobody gives a rodents donkey if you're an Electrical Engineer in real life, what matters is if your character has a high enough skill in it. Need to lift a giant rock, your character had better have a high strength, and it won't help at all if you can bench press a buick in real life.
When you start moving away from that paradigm, you change it from an RPG to a Video Game because now it really doesn't matter what skills and attributes your character has, it suddenly becomes all about the player. You can take the best character in the world in a video game and pair them up with an uncoordinated ditz, and they'll probably be beaten by a weak character ran by someone that can thread a dozen needles in under 10 seconds from 5 paces.
Now of course that doesn't mean either one isn't fun. Same with hybrids, which seem to be the in thing among devs lately. An important thing for all gamers is do you have fun playing it...
It depends on the game. There is no right and wrong for RPGs or MMORPGs. It's about execution, and audience.
My opinion is that dice rolls were there from D&D days to compensate for the fact that it wasn't possible to do the things players were RP'ing. How does one simulate an encounter in a fantasy situation while being "fair".
"A dragon attacks you" - dice roll determines whether it hit you or you evaded the attack. Fine.
The dice roll carried over into PC games because there were still technical limitations that didn't allow the player to be the one responsible for the outcome.
We're at the point now where there's a CHOICE. The player can be more responsible for how their character navigates encounters or we can use the dice roll process that is a nostalgic part of the genre. There can even be hybrids.
To say that dice rolls are what makes an RPG an RPG is little careless. Role Playing Game. Not Roll Playing Game.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Obviously, the player is always the dominant feature.
Think about it. If the character skill is more important, then an afk lvl 10 should be able to defeat any active player below level 10. That's ridiculous.
Ultimately your success should be about what the player does instead of what the player can do.
When rpg's are at their best is when they give you a huge amounts of tools and leave it up to you to figure out a proper solution for different problems. When they are at their worst is when your elven priest unleashes hell slaughtering hundreds of undeads with his bow of divine lightning while everyone else sits on the sideline wondering what the hell is going on.
Dungeon gameplay has always been about the teamwork among players instead of bringing characters to do the work for you. Saying what should matter the most is character skills is basically thinking that it matters more that you bring a warrior with a proper build and good enough gear score instead of bringing a player that knows how to play the tank role properly.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I'd say both, while leaning a little more towards player skill than character stats. I'll tell you why
the concept of RPG quite possibly started with pen and paper role playing games. When playing PnP, there's really no easily available and convenient way for the player to be in control beyond rolling a dice with stat bonuses to tilt the outcome in your favor.
Videogames however, in my humble opinion at least, have largely been about a more direct control and interactivity for the player.
With the adaptation of RPG's to videogames, whether it's an MMO or not, I think it's important to keep that in mind.
Ideally I'd prefer a beautiful marriage of attribute bonuses and player skill. I'd actually say Dark Souls does this pretty well. Not that the Dark Souls brutality should be some kind of standard, but hear me out.
For those that haven't played it. In Dark Souls you've got your attributes that give you bonuses, combined with a solid combat system that leaves a lot in the player's own hands. You can invest all your points in Strength, Vitality and Endurance and run around in bulky armour with heavy weapons, but you still have to get used to the weapon as a player, and time your attacks, dodges, parries and blocks accordingly.
Now Dark Souls is just an example, but it illustrates what I mean. You might have all the right attributes and skill bonuses to suit a certain playstyle or character archetype, but I think there should still be a certain degree of mechanical complexity involved in utilizing these attributes and skills effectively in the game.
I feel that if everything comes down to character stats and simulated dice rolls, a game quickly becomes an "Adventurer Manager Sim" where you tweak the stats and input commands to see what happens. Though..come to think of it, that might be an interesting concept if it was purposely developed as such.
I can't really answer as the poll is too restrictive.
I would say that it depends on what the game is "about". Some games are about the character. they are very much role playing games in that it's your character that can do things based on the skills/stats that the character has attained.
In other games, the "action combat" games, it's "mostly" about the player and the player skill. Though it seems that stats still play a role.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'm not really sure I understand the topic well enough.
Character skills come first. If there were no character skills, there would be no combat. But, how those character skills behave / interact should be based on player skill. The deeper you want your combat, the more thought has to go into designing the character skills. If you just want shallow combat then the character skills can be more bland or you can go twitch / action combat.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Character skill . safe bet Though i want to play something more about player skill , the high ping and lag kill me .
Problem of character skill is level gap , so it more about the skill of developer to make it good or bad .
Why would high ping and lag mean that player skill is wasted?
Surely player skill is just another way of saying that you know how to use your character's skills to the best of your ability? I guess if a character skills are unbalanced then player skill is negated but I would hope most games strive for character balance to ensure that player skill has meaning.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I did a whole video on the subject, so of course I believe it is character skill. I also fully understand that combat systems and game mechanics designed to be more tactical and strategic don't appeal to the majority of gamers.
Tactics and strategy are part of player skill.
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.
Character skill . safe bet Though i want to play something more about player skill , the high ping and lag kill me .
Problem of character skill is level gap , so it more about the skill of developer to make it good or bad .
Why would high ping and lag mean that player skill is wasted?
Surely player skill is just another way of saying that you know how to use your character's skills to the best of your ability? I guess if a character skills are unbalanced then player skill is negated but I would hope most games strive for character balance to ensure that player skill has meaning.
It wasted if you can't move like you want and when you though you evasive succeed , you dead . i prefer something that will give me more time to troll the enemies , instead of how fast one hit the keys .
I ready like this game , though there are more bug and stuff like lag and disconnect . and the ****ing hackers .
Personally, I'm big on immersion and I always roleplay a fantasy variant of myself - so I prefer my own personal skill to be more important than character statistics.
However, I'm also a huge fan of meaningful progression - and I'd hate a game with zero character advancement.
But I'm not a big fan of the linear level-to-level standard, and I don't think we've seen a proper implementation of no levels and no classes. I think it can work if handled correctly.
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.
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.
Hey, what I object to is the egotism and narcissism of the so called skillz people.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
People with twitch skills and less patience will probably prefer more player-skill based games. (This is my generalization, but I will say "younger gamers.")
People who want to sink a lot of time into a game, who don't mind grinding and gradually developing their character, who want to think about long-term character development strategies, monitor cool downs in tactical situations, etc. will prefer character skill. These characteristics seem to me to be more common among older people.
One comment here: player-skill is not something learned overnight, just like you don't develop your in-game character in a day. Most people have to work quite a bit at getting skilled in a game. Sometimes you can carry some stuff forward from previous games, but not to the extend where you become a twitch god overnight.
MMO's should not be based on twitch skills. All important should be player skill at tactical choices. Your skill choice weave is what should separate good from bad.
As far as character skill? Everquest had it where you skilled up your skills, but then people just sat there casting a spell over and over till it maxed so it really didnt matter. Maybe Im not understanding the question because that just seems absurd.
Comments
As far as player skill goes I think it's important to have a balance. I'm not a competitive player so I'm not a huge fan of getting my butt kicked all the time because I don't play as often as somebody else or maybe I'm just not as good.
So really it's a balance. Pen & Paper RPGs you have imagination and dice rolls to decide how battles play out. In video games it's more restrictive so it feels like for a system to be interactive and fun, it's going to be a system that also depends on and improves upon a player's skill.
To be a little more specific, and it will probably annoy some people, an important thing to look for is RPG.
If it's an RPG, you rely on the characters abilities, not yours, otherwise it's a video game.
After all, that's the purpose of having a character and stats anyway instead of just being yourself.
Your character has rewire the ships stardrive, nobody gives a rodents donkey if you're an Electrical Engineer in real life, what matters is if your character has a high enough skill in it.
Need to lift a giant rock, your character had better have a high strength, and it won't help at all if you can bench press a buick in real life.
When you start moving away from that paradigm, you change it from an RPG to a Video Game because now it really doesn't matter what skills and attributes your character has, it suddenly becomes all about the player. You can take the best character in the world in a video game and pair them up with an uncoordinated ditz, and they'll probably be beaten by a weak character ran by someone that can thread a dozen needles in under 10 seconds from 5 paces.
Now of course that doesn't mean either one isn't fun. Same with hybrids, which seem to be the in thing among devs lately. An important thing for all gamers is do you have fun playing it...
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
its important to balance these things on a certain game
My opinion is that dice rolls were there from D&D days to compensate for the fact that it wasn't possible to do the things players were RP'ing. How does one simulate an encounter in a fantasy situation while being "fair".
"A dragon attacks you" - dice roll determines whether it hit you or you evaded the attack. Fine.
The dice roll carried over into PC games because there were still technical limitations that didn't allow the player to be the one responsible for the outcome.
We're at the point now where there's a CHOICE. The player can be more responsible for how their character navigates encounters or we can use the dice roll process that is a nostalgic part of the genre. There can even be hybrids.
To say that dice rolls are what makes an RPG an RPG is little careless. Role Playing Game. Not Roll Playing Game.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When rpg's are at their best is when they give you a huge amounts of tools and leave it up to you to figure out a proper solution for different problems. When they are at their worst is when your elven priest unleashes hell slaughtering hundreds of undeads with his bow of divine lightning while everyone else sits on the sideline wondering what the hell is going on.
Dungeon gameplay has always been about the teamwork among players instead of bringing characters to do the work for you. Saying what should matter the most is character skills is basically thinking that it matters more that you bring a warrior with a proper build and good enough gear score instead of bringing a player that knows how to play the tank role properly.
Do they need to? For example, devs obviously are going for the action crowd when they made action RPGs.
It is really about if a game is fun. So what if devs deviates from old RPG standards. Are you going to debate the definition of computer RPGs too?
the concept of RPG quite possibly started with pen and paper role playing games. When playing PnP, there's really no easily available and convenient way for the player to be in control beyond rolling a dice with stat bonuses to tilt the outcome in your favor.
Videogames however, in my humble opinion at least, have largely been about a more direct control and interactivity for the player.
With the adaptation of RPG's to videogames, whether it's an MMO or not, I think it's important to keep that in mind.
Ideally I'd prefer a beautiful marriage of attribute bonuses and player skill. I'd actually say Dark Souls does this pretty well. Not that the Dark Souls brutality should be some kind of standard, but hear me out.
For those that haven't played it. In Dark Souls you've got your attributes that give you bonuses, combined with a solid combat system that leaves a lot in the player's own hands. You can invest all your points in Strength, Vitality and Endurance and run around in bulky armour with heavy weapons, but you still have to get used to the weapon as a player, and time your attacks, dodges, parries and blocks accordingly.
Now Dark Souls is just an example, but it illustrates what I mean. You might have all the right attributes and skill bonuses to suit a certain playstyle or character archetype, but I think there should still be a certain degree of mechanical complexity involved in utilizing these attributes and skills effectively in the game.
I feel that if everything comes down to character stats and simulated dice rolls, a game quickly becomes an "Adventurer Manager Sim" where you tweak the stats and input commands to see what happens.
Though..come to think of it, that might be an interesting concept if it was purposely developed as such.
I would say that it depends on what the game is "about". Some games are about the character. they are very much role playing games in that it's your character that can do things based on the skills/stats that the character has attained.
In other games, the "action combat" games, it's "mostly" about the player and the player skill. Though it seems that stats still play a role.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
A game with some RPG elements does not have to be treated as a RPG. Plus, if players just want to play in some way and have fun, what is the problem?
Character skills come first. If there were no character skills, there would be no combat. But, how those character skills behave / interact should be based on player skill. The deeper you want your combat, the more thought has to go into designing the character skills. If you just want shallow combat then the character skills can be more bland or you can go twitch / action combat.
Though i want to play something more about player skill , the high ping and lag kill me .
Problem of character skill is level gap , so it more about the skill of developer to make it good or bad .
Surely player skill is just another way of saying that you know how to use your character's skills to the best of your ability? I guess if a character skills are unbalanced then player skill is negated but I would hope most games strive for character balance to ensure that player skill has meaning.
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.
MMORPG should be character skills, 100% for me. MMOFPS, sure "manly" character clickie skills rule.
VG
i prefer something that will give me more time to troll the enemies , instead of how fast one hit the keys .
I ready like this game , though there are more bug and stuff like lag and disconnect . and the ****ing hackers .
Personally, I'm big on immersion and I always roleplay a fantasy variant of myself - so I prefer my own personal skill to be more important than character statistics.
However, I'm also a huge fan of meaningful progression - and I'd hate a game with zero character advancement.
But I'm not a big fan of the linear level-to-level standard, and I don't think we've seen a proper implementation of no levels and no classes. I think it can work if handled correctly.
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.
Hey, what I object to is the egotism and narcissism of the so called skillz people.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
All important should be player skill at tactical choices. Your skill choice weave is what should separate good from bad.
As far as character skill? Everquest had it where you skilled up your skills, but then people just sat there casting a spell over and over till it maxed so it really didnt matter. Maybe Im not understanding the question because that just seems absurd.