I have zero respect for Bethesda now

I remember my first playthrough- it was messy to say the least (to only mention that I've discovered in Hub that you have to add caps from merchant's inventory and it doesn't happen automatically like in newer Fallouts).

I've restarted and the game was noticeably easier to play. I'm glad I've sticked to it as I replayed it couple times and it was my introduction to other RPGs.

Also- were you playing normal version or with FIXT?

 

Well if you're gonna push through and continue to play I recommend installing fallout fixt

 

I know, I was joking. I love the nature of this place, no banning.

 

yeah I agree wholehearted. You've got to fuck up big time to piss off the casual audience.

 

Lol, randomness does not equal roleplaying. That could not be a dumber statement.

 

Yes, it does. Without randomness, meaning your character can't fail, it means your character is perfect. Characters shouldn't be perfect. Randomness is meant to convey your character succeeding or failing, it needs to exist. And if you mean FPS is somehow a valid gameplay for RPGs, it isn't. You are the one controlling the character's actions and not the character themselves doing the actions, while the only thing you can do is tell them to do them.

But i love that you purposely just ignored 90% of my post and went for the "lol randonmess isn't roleplaying" (also ignoring R.Graves post that explains this as well). Just means you don't know jack about roleplaying (just the mere fact you called that a dumb statement shows your utter ignorance about the genre). But i see this argument going nowhere because first, nothing you can say will ever counter argue this because this is how RPGs have been from the start. And second, you seem to be the resident argument looper, just going around in circles because you don't want to be wrong.

 

That's a hell of a lot closer than this latest rehashing of 'traditional means of achieving roleplaying in videogames are what define roleplaying games hur dur'. The term isn't even exclusive to videogames and tabletop games, but this utter nonsense gets trotted out as often the 'playing a role' bs.

It's not a complicated concept, but people seem to have difficulty articulating it. Roleplaying games are those where the gameplay is roleplaying. Roleplaying is not inherently, specifically, or exclusively related to stats, levels, or dice rolls (invisible or otherwise). Those are merely *a* means to the end. None of which guarantee a roleplaying experience. The fact that you can play an RPG IRL, without anything other than another person should clue people into this fact (and I do mean fact). That we call this LARPing is kind of hilarious considering it was literally the first kind of RPG, but I digress.

Whatever the medium is, the requirements for an RPG are exactly identical. You decide, in part, who your character is. You shape their role. You guide their story (not just their progress through a game). RPGs are defined by choice and narrative. If your choices have no narrative significance for your character then it's not an RPG. If you don't have actual choices then it's not even close to an RPG.

 

Players make mistakes.

Failing without a choice
vs
Failing through choice

"You are the one controlling the character's actions"
Either you don't understand what roleplaying is, or you don't think RPGs are about roleplaying.

"But i love that you purposely just ignored 90% of my post and went for the "lol randonmess isn't roleplaying" (also ignoring R.Graves post that explains this as well). Just means you don't know jack about roleplaying (just the mere fact you called that a dumb statement shows your utter ignorance about the genre). But i see this argument going nowhere because first, nothing you can say will ever counter argue this because this is how RPGs have been from the start. And second, you seem to be the resident argument looper, just going around in circles because you don't want to be wrong."

If the central conceit / foundational premise of your argument is wrong, then your argument is wrong. There's no sense in belaboring the point by going line by line. It's just wrong.

Spare me your drama. It's a poor cover for your errors.

 

K then explain Pokemon.

 

It is not just randomness. By having a character that is good at something, it will have a much lower chance of failing randomly.

That is what skills/attributes/whatever the values the RPG uses for representing the character means.

Look at classic Fallout 2 for example, when you have 25 lockpicking skill, you will fail open locks a lot, you also have a high chance of damaging the lock when you fail. But if you have 250 lockpicing skill, you will pretty much never fail and will pretty much never jam a lock. Because your character became a master lockpicker.

People think that RNG in RPGs is totally random, but they forget that that RNG is usually added to the values that character has for doing stuff, making the "totally random" become "not so random after all".

If you build a character to be good at something, it will be good at something, if you build the character to be bad at something, it will be bad at something and fail a lot. That is not random at all.

Now, if RPGs depended on player physical skill, and the character is supposed to be a master swordsman, but the player sucks at controlling the character in combat, how is that roleplaying? You can pretend all you want that your character is a master swordsman, but since the character in the game is being controlled by a player that sucks at fighting enemies, that game will show a different character.

In those games (that depend on player skill for what should be character skill), you can't roleplay a character that doesn't have the same "skills" as the player.
You're roleplaying yourself with a different name in a different "world", you're not roleplaying your character.

That is definitly not what RPGs are.

 

Not exactly a concept that is hard to grasp, but i guess someone have an hard time doing that. Having some RPG elements doesn't mean your game is a RPG. A game to be a RPG has to be it at its core, having some of it around its core doesn't make it a full blown RPG. It's like saying GTA is a full blown racing game just because you get to drive cars.

Controlling your character with your actions and not the character themselves doing those actions themselves is literally larping.

 

Or saying GTA is an RPG because it allows you to level up stats.

Part of the role-playing experience is taking on the role of that character. The RNG simulates the character's failure at doing something though with luck, sometimes they may pull it off.

Levelling up skills and specializing in the chosen role however reduces the RNG as the PC becomes better. It's progression and role-playing wrapped in one. Plus unlike RNG based games, RPGs like this reduce the chance of the RNG screwing you through the above method.

That's the kind of RPG definition Bethesda's fanboys fall back on to justify how their newer games are RPGs. It's more than that, it's also about playing a role and learning to overcome the weaknesses of that chosen role while being able to use their strengths (i.e a genius with limited endurance, a brawny powerhouse with no luck etc.).

 

Gameplay is one of the major cores of a RPG and when your gameplay completely fails to resemble one (i.e you, the player are the one dictating the outcomes of battles through your skills and not the character themselves with their skills), then your RPG has failed in the gameplay department.

This applies to New Vegas, because the gameplay is not a RPG. It's a shooter with light RPG elements. The only reason the game can even be a RPG at all is because of the stats, the speech checks and quests with different outcomes. That is enough to be a RPG, but without the gameplay to suplement these, like an 100% RPG, it's one of the lesser ones. It's still much more of a RPG than fucking Fallout 3 and 4, that's for sure.

Just makes me wish New Vegas had the gameplay of the first two games, then it would have been one of the best RPGs ever made.

 

I think if they worked with the game systems they could translate RPG combat mechanics into first person. Using guns with low guns skill would cause them to sway like mad, have large amounts of random recoil, and take ages to reload and chamber bullets. Having a low melee or unarmed skill would mean shorter ranged swings that throw the player off balance.

 

That sounds terrible and annoying. There's no logical sense in smashing together two genres so inherently at odds outside of trying to sell more copies. Hell I'd argue new Vegas was great because it kept it's conflicting genres so separate in gameplay.

 

This is bogus. The stats define [to the engine or other players] the extents and ability of the player characters; without them it's all just a virtual "Let's pretend".

The primary function of Roleplaying rules... is to evaluate when to say 'No' in the imagined adventure. 'No', your character cannot pick that lock without tools; 'No' your character can't even manage it with tools... they know nothing of locks. 'No', your character doesn't have the hard science & computer technology skills to hack into an AI and make it think they are its friend; 'No', your character does not have the chutzpah to convincingly walk into the biker bar and impress them without a fight... and 'No', they don't have the knife throwing skill to best the top biker at his own game. 'No', they cannot perform professional motorcycle stunts like riding a bridge banister.

'No', they are not literate or astute enough to perceive the subtext of the NPC's journal. 'No' they cannot pass for a 90 pound weakling—not with a strength of 28 on a scale of 1 to 30.

Stats define the boundaries of the character's ability to perform in the game.
(And when their actions are within those bounds—ie. they are then possible— the impartial RNG aspect determines the circumstance of whether it happens or not; for even an expert can screw up, or have a tool break on them.)

In systems where the outcome is weighted [best kind] the character's statistical skill at the task is their measure of influence at the task... just how much can things go wrong for them and them still succeed by wit and ability... where a lesser expert, or novice would utterly fail.

What fact? You don't need another person to roleplay; but you do need limitations. An RPG could be made around a lone PC in an inescapable jail cell.

No. This is not an intrinsic part of an RPG—though it is commonplace in them. Your character can be assigned, and their skills even fixed. The roleplaying aspect is determining how that character with their history, abilities, and skill set, would react in a given situation. In the case of the prisoner [mentioned above] it could be as simple as deciding to do Push-ups to pass the time; or deciding what truths (or lies) about themselves to hide or reveal to the voice in the adjacent cell. The whole game could take place in that cell.

The player's choices [that can succeed] are indicated by their character's stats, and development; essentially it is what their specific character capable of doing in the given situation; and what would they choose to do, or choose not to do.

Now if they are a life-long thief, accustomed to stealing —to the point of unconscious habit... should they even have a choice?
(Is that not out of character if they do not?)

Here I can see the need for a reverse stat check in order to not steal as typically the character is wont to do... unless they are intelligent enough to know to choose a better time than their present (dangerous) situation. Some RPGs have this; especially those with character phobias, and other mental conditions, that would cause the character to regularly succumb to their affective disorders.

Consider the character Malak in Conan The Destroyer. Malak would steal anything that caught his notice—regardless of being the obvious (or even the only!) suspect; and without even expectation of escape.

 

I honestly blame the AAA industry for diluting what a RPG is so much that now a ton of people have a wrong perspective on it. Now we have people doing mental gymnastics to try to say certain games with RPG elements are full RPGs and not just action games with RPG elements.

 

Well, in all honesty, what defines a game's genre? Is it narrative and themes or is it gameplay? I agree with you, it's gameplay.
For every medium you have to ask what defines the genre from other genres first. So seeing how the gameplay of a game like Wasteland is crazy different from a game like Fallout 3 and then saying they're both RPGs sound a bit contradicting doesn't it?

With movies is it themes and tones or is it editing and shot angles? With music is it tones and rhythms and vocal delivery? I can't give an answer for these in concreteness but I can say that a genre of a game is dictated by gameplay.

What kind of gameplay and what kind of genre are these?
Need for Speed - Racing
Call of Duty - Shooting
Fallout 3 - Shooting but we're gonna have people call it RPG?
Fallout - Turn based combat and skill checks

I'd call BGS games at most action-RPGs they have more RPG elements than other games but the gameplay is action based still. That's how I define action-RPGs compared to normal RPGs. If you diminish the RPG elements more and more you'll be getting a shooter game (a type of action game). That's why Fallout 4 feels more like a shooter than an action-RPG compared to Fallout 3 and New Vegas.