RPG's are not what they used to be

[Avatar]

Roleplaying in Skyrim, as you describe it, is entirely optional and takes place entirely in a player's head.

As opposed to the PnP version where nothing happened in the players head?

As I said, your decisions in Skyrim basically amount to 'do this content or choose not to do this content.'

Explain to me how this differs from RPGs in the way you see it? Baldur's Gate was most definitely an RPG, but did you get a choice in chasing down Irenicus? You got the roleplaying in how you did it. Who you killed and kissed along the way, and who you didn't. Who you helped, how you helped them, and why you helped them.

And did the world change? No, save for a missing NPC or two, or some generic swooning text with a store discount.

The roleplaying in PnP RPGs formed an integral part of the gameplay.

Yes.

The game reacts and adapts to your roleplaying.

Not necessarily. Everything in a campaign was still governed by rules; either the ones in the Player Manual, DM guide, or the Monster Manual, or what was written in the campaign. These same rules govern our cRPGs.

Again, the genre is defined by what it's called. Role playing. In that regard I count Skyrim as and RPG. One with, like C-Bear said, 50% action, 50% RPG, but still RPG.

@C-Bear: I never did play Fallout 1 & 2 so I really can't comment about those. I'd argue, though, that given a campaign that you play through in PnP RPGs, a second and third playthrough would give you pretty similar results in terms of the main plot points and ending as the first playthrough. There is a reason D&D drew on dungeons so much. Besides the obvious fun factor and scare factor and a natural habitat for monsters and traps, it's a setting where there is less obvious way to go off script and ruin a DM's day. Our DM always got out party inside a dungeon in the first 5 minutes of play so that we didn't screw him into having to think up a whole new story on the spot! This is dealt with in most cRPGs by being forced to limit the players interaction with the world; there's no DM you can describe your actions to. However, once you've done what the game allows you to do in it's interface, it's got the same rule set that a DM is equipped with, save for creativity. (Except I remember in NWN, they tried to implement a DM system, where a DM could run an in game campaign with his party with a VOIP system. Horribly implemented, way ahead of its time.)
I do agree 100% with your assessment regarding the genres!

[C-Bear]

@C-Bear: I never did play Fallout 1 & 2 so I really can't comment about those. I'd argue, though, that given a campaign that you play through in PnP RPGs, a second and third playthrough would give you pretty similar results in terms of the main plot points and ending as the first playthrough. There is a reason D&D drew on dungeons so much. Besides the obvious fun factor and scare factor and a natural habitat for monsters and traps, it's a setting where there is less obvious way to go off script and ruin a DM's day. Our DM always got out party inside a dungeon in the first 5 minutes of play so that we didn't screw him into having to think up a whole new story on the spot! This is dealt with in most cRPGs by being forced to limit the players interaction with the world; there's no DM you can describe your actions to. However, once you've done what the game allows you to do in it's interface, it's got the same rule set that a DM is equipped with, save for creativity. (Except I remember in NWN, they tried to implement a DM system, where a DM could run an in game campaign with his party with a VOIP system. Horribly implemented, way ahead of its time.)
I do agree 100% with your assessment regarding the genres!

@playthrough's being the same: well, yeah, that's to do with the story-telling. The creator wants to tell a story. BG2: Bhaalspawn defeats Irenicus. That's not the point. The thing that gives a game it's RPG soul is how you get there. I never finished Skyrim, but let's look at Oblivion. It doesn't matter if you were good or bad, mage or thief, you'd eventually save the emperor and kill the dragon. Everytime the game world would present itself to you in the same way - regardless of your earlier actions. All other quests would also play out the same way again, again and again. Your only choice was do I shoot an arrow or lob a fireball. In Fallout, if you had high speechcraft skills you could talk your way out of a situation instead of fighting. In Baldur's Gate your party combination and previously completed quests would alter your experience of future quests.

Come to think of it, I can actually only think of one REAL 100% RPG video game: http://sleepisdeath.net/

[Edelweiss]

tl;dr thread

[Graal]

As opposed to the PnP version where nothing happened in the players head?

The difference being that in PnP RPGs, the rules were all part of the game. In Skyrim, the rules are all in your head. You're playing an imaginary game in your head, which isn't reflected in the actual game. The characters or world doesn't react to the fact that you're lawful evil, because the lawful evil is all in your head.

Explain to me how this differs from RPGs in the way you see it? Baldur's Gate was most definitely an RPG, but did you get a choice in chasing down Irenicus? You got the roleplaying in how you did it. Who you killed and kissed along the way, and who you didn't. Who you helped, how you helped them, and why you helped them.

Are you being serious here? The difference being that in Baldur's Gate individual situations had various ways of approaching them, most of which gave you different outcomes and had long-term repercussions that could possibly affect you in different parts of the game. There's a major difference between a game given you different choices in how you want to approach certain content (most of the Infinity engine RPGs) and a game giving you a choice about whether you want to do the content or not (content). In Skyrim you don't get any choices and you don't have to think about anything you do, because there are no long-term repercussions to your actions aside from those the game has scripted in as part of the story.

And did the world change? No, save for a missing NPC or two, or some generic swooning text with a store discount.

Once again we get back to player agency in the form of choice and consequence. In the Infinity engine RPGs, making certain choices could lead to different consequences. In Skyrim there isn't choice and consequence. You can choose to do a quest and the only consequence you end up getting is... you either kill a bunch of generic NPCs, or you don't.

Not necessarily. Everything in a campaign was still governed by rules; either the ones in the Player Manual, DM guide, or the Monster Manual, or what was written in the campaign. These same rules govern our cRPGs.

Yes, the backbone of the PnP campaign will still be predetermined and couldn't be changed (in most cases), but the meat within was where the the real roleplaying took place. You might encounter a dragon and manage to escape it, only to have it appear later in the campaign and demolish half of the orc army. Or you could try to kill it immediately and later you end up facing the brunt of the orc army. Or the way you interact with an NPC elf could lead to his enmity, where he later comes back and attempts to kill you, or you can win his friendship and have him help you out in the fight against the orc army. Or you can simply tell him you're not intent on harming him, part ways and not see him again in the campaign. Or he might simply start attacking you the moment he sees you, based on the fact that earlier in the campaign you slaughtered all the elven citizens in a town struck by the plague. Regardless of what you do in the game, you're going to face the evil wizard Aviosis and his orc army in the end, but the journey can change every time you play the campaign.

That's a pretty simplistic example, but it illustrates my point about player agency. In PnP RPGs, players directly influenced the narrative. The narrative could change based on what players did. Skyrim is absolutely devoid of this. There is no choices. There is no repercussions to your actions. There is no player agency aside from character creation. Skyrim is a straight-up action game with limited RPG elements. It's a hack 'n slash. Not an RPG.

It's this insistence on labeling everything and anything RPGs based on the silliest criteria available that's helped lead to the decline of the RPG genre as a whole. If a game like Skyrim, which isn't even an RPG, can win multiple RPG of the year awards, which publisher is going to spend the time and resources making a game as elaborate as Planescape Torment?

It's actually pretty sad when you think about it. In 1999 the RPG of the Year was Planescape Torment. In 2011 the RPG of the year was Skyrim. People today don't know what a real RPG even is and they likely never will know.