Larian Studios Forums General Chat RPG Chat The Great Debate

So. Its been quiet around here, but I blame all us old folks that haven't posted anything interesting. With that in mind, and a little inspiration from the D2 chats going on, its time for a debate we as gaming fans can all...I was going to say enjoy but that may not be best...

Anyway, I will drop weekly (give or take) topics for discussion on different issues in gaming.


This inaugural discussion.

We all have our own ideas of what exactly a Role Playing Game is, what it entails, and what our ideal RPG would contain.

So, what is a role playing game to you, what components MUST it have to fit into the genre, are there things it MUST NOT contain, and what you would you create if you had the wherewithal?

i'm not sure what the differance is between an rpg and an action rpg all i know is that my first game was fable 2, my second was prince of persia and i just finished divinity 2. i have a game here called Sacred 2, not sure what that is classified as either but what i really would like to know is if anyone has played it and would it be a good next game. it was given to me as a gift and i would like to hear from you all.

I think Action RPGs are RPG where success is determined by player skill rather than character skill. Examples: Oblivion & Fable 2.

In RPGs like Baldur's Gate & Neverwinter Nights everything is determined by your character's attributes/skills & dice rolls.

Nice idea, NeroJB !

First, I put players into different categories.

So, for each of them, *different* aspects of an RPG are most favourable, imho.

To me, for example, as I'm a "explorer" type of player, free-roaming RPGs with lots of secrets to discover are perfect.

But I also like social interaction very much. Personally to me this is an "must have".


The Action-RPG genre as "defined" by Blizzard, contains social interaction reduced to the absolute minimum.

The RPG part there is rather like "I fight, therefore I play a role".

What's new and what they invented and bring as a new element into the RPG genre is that collecting stuff. That wasn't there in that regard.


Now, addoitionally there comes the point what developers regard as "what is an RPG". I mean, what they find necessary in order to play an RPG "successfully".

It would be nice to read some comments from the Larian staff here as well, if possible.

For me the most important aspect of a RPG are the skills, spells, abilities, feats or whatever you want to call them.
I know they aren't really a requirement for a RPG, but it really gives me the feeling my character is actually learning things, becomes stronger etc.
I find RPG's without skills, upgrades, ... less immersing(doesn't mean they can't be fun, I just like to let my character learn some new tricks :p).

Another important aspect is the story. I don't care if it's cheesy, I just want the feeling that I'm part of the world and my actions affect the world around me.

It's all in the name: ROLE Playing Game. If you cannot play a character - by which I mean some say on personality, ethics, approaches to problem solving, etc NOT stat building! - then it is not an RPG.

Doesn't matter if you get full creation options or are given a character - the important detail is choice of approach.

CAN I romance the girl? Good. Might be an RPG. Do I have no option BUT to romance the girl? NOT an RPG.

In terms of computer games, the closer it gets to Planescape: Torment, the nearer it is to being an RPG.

Well to me a roleplaying game is first and formost about story. If it doesn't have a strong story that the player can work through as the protaganist then for me the game isn't a roleplaying game. Having said I can enjoy a good Action RPG as well, but I don't expect them to provide me with a good story and I'm pleasantly surprized if they do .

Ok all, sorry for no follow up questions, I have recently been busy with a little new thing called fatherhood.

I will come up with something good. Soon (tm)

That's just okay, I think.

...the nearer it is to a book.



Kidding, I like that game a lot too.

Makes an RPG in my humble opinion:

- deep story in a rich setting
- character development (getting stronger, more powerful, more experienced... over time)
- choices that affect the story and the setting and your character

^ Pretty much ForkTong, yeah.

(And they made a book of PS:T, IIRC, so you're not wrong there, either )

I think you might be quite pleased with DRakensang 2. I'm saying this as a fn, though.

For Drakensang 2 there is actually a book out there, but it only touches the game from some sides, an is only in German yet.

Same with an "solo adventure" book.

I liked the first one well enough, so I don't doubt I'll like the second when/if it ever appears in English, Alrik

Ok so here is a more specific question to follow up.

What (if any) part should romance play in an RPG? Should it be a key component? Does it have no place?

If you do prefer it what does it take for it to be done well, and what is your favorite example romance being done well in an RPG?

I still haven"t see good romance option but I prefered them to be key component becaose of story
It would be so good and cool to have romance option with in Divinty 2
In fable have interesting options about romance but its not perfectly done

Romance does not have to be a part of the game, but it's nice to have the option. If your character is wandering around everywhere with a group of people s/he would in your opinion find attractive, the ability to pursue that attraction if you choose is a natural outgrowth of the story so makes sense. It's harder to implement in single character RPGs than in party based RPGs, but still not impossible.

Best implementations: Dragon Age implements the option superbly, giving you a great choice of romance options (Including 'none'). Probably the best party based version, though Jade Empire is also good and the classic PS:T is also. For single character games, only The Witcher implements romance well, AFAIK, giving you both options and a good basis for those options in that the possible romances arise as part of the story and the characters are recurring and strongly involved in the story itself, so Geralt knows them pretty well.

I'm not so keen on romance being an absolute requirement, as it takes choice away from the player in a very key area which makes it pretty difficult to define that one key aspect of your character. JRPGs seem to use this option most, but they are more like interactive films than RPGs anyway and I play them on that basis. I don't really expect to be making important character choices in those.

That said, romance is pretty much pointless in an ARPG, where the only point of the game is to knock up an enormous kill count. I can't see the Diablo games being at all improved by the addition of romance options - in fact, it would probably be nothing but an annoying distraction for most Diablo players. Such games are not about playing a character, after all. I love them when I'm in the right mood, don't get me wrong, but they still are not RPGs.

well you are right
Romance option in games like Diablo is stipid bit in games like divinity that would be cool
I like romance option in Jade empire
It would be awesome if Damian capture Rhode and ask you to surrender or something like that

I personally liked the implementation in KotOR. There isn't much for choice in the matter but I liked Bastila's character so it worked for me.

DA:O did do a fine job of it as well. For some reason I like Leliana...

The Viconia romance in Baldur's Gate 2 I like the best. It takes a lot of time and flows naturally.

same here
bastila was hard cook but pretty much if you romance her ending is totaly awesome
I like the part when you put down you weapons and stand unarmed vs Bastila and she can2t kill you becaose you love you

anyway

I like Leliana too
Not sure why everyone like Morigann
Well I guess becaose you can fuck her after 40+ influence

@Nero
There isn"t much people around here
This is no great debate if no one come