Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6576743" data-attributes="member: 205">Let me take a stab at this, as it ties into some ideas I've had noodling around with for the past few days. Let's define the main function of a RPG (any RPG, whether tabletop, computer single player, or MMO) as the identification with an avatar (a fictional construct under your control) with attributes that are customizable, and also progressible through achievement or time, with the avatar having a fictional place within a larger narrative.   This is a broad definition, but it sweeps up games that are often considered to have "role-playing elements" such as Borderlands, kid games like Club Penguin, big budget CRPGs like Dragon Age, MMOs as diverse as World of Warcraft and ArcheAge, and TTRPGs as diverse as D&D, Shadowrun, and Savage Worlds.  Cons to this definition are that it excludes dramatic one-shot story games like Fiasco.  I'm not 100% happy with the definition, but it serves a purpose for further discussion.Now, to go further afield, I'm going to propose that there is a binary at play in all RPGs:  an exploration of conflict and an exploration of color. (Have to Americanize it, sorry [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]!)The exploration of conflict is primarily about the avatar(s) progressing through the narrative, and overcoming narrative conflicts to achieve their progression within the greater fictional world.  This is also the means in which most customizable and progressible options are opened in most RPGs.  This is fighting through orc caves in D&D, or exploring the Air Temple in Final Fantasy, or completing the Icecrown Citadel in World of Warcraft.  The avatar(s) have a goal (defeat X, or explore Y) and the referee, whether this be a DM, a game client, or a shared server, presents them with challenges that carry the risk of failure.  Exploration of color, then, is the gameplay where conflict, risk, and stakes are not present or fairly low-key.  It's talking to the city guards to find out what's going on in the city in D&D.  It's exploring a ramshackle hut in Skyrim to find materials.  It's trying out new outfits in Club Penguin.  It's building up your home with new furnishings in RIFT, or ArcheAge, or Star Wars Galaxies.Every RPG allows for exploration of both tendencies in greater or lesser degree.  But the tension always exists as to how much support each goal is given.  For example, take the "4e is like WoW" meme.  While there's some facile comparisons between the two ("Roles are like the MMO trinity!"  "Powers are like pushing a button!"), I think there's a more subtle frame of reference that's only apparent if you've played both.  WoW, at release in 2004, while more conflict oriented than other MMOs, still had a lot of sandbox elements.  Travel to new places took a very long time, forcing you to traverse large parts of the world's two landmasses.  You could only enter dungeons and raids by travel to far-flung areas of the game.  Progression through the game's end narrative required painstaking effort to find rare items.  By 2008, much of the logistical challenges of the game had been modified.  Flying mounts made travel less of a chore.  Spells that used to require reagents had the need removed.  Travel to the end-game challenges was ameliorated by the introduction of a Dungeon Finder, which grouped people together automatically and teleported them to a dungeon.  How does that tie to 4e?  Both games (the change from 3e->4e and from early WoW to WoW with multiple expansions) emphasized a change in focus from stake-less play to play with larger goals, a change from a focus on color to a focus on conflict.  WoW now emphasized the ease of getting into what it considered its main design focus, its dungeons and its raids.  System changes were made to emphasize being in the conflict, rather than the journey to get there.  The main changes to 4e were similar in nature.  Combat was focused on challenging set piece encounters, rather than random encounters from exploration.  Outside combat, the game was focused on skill challenges.  What are skill challenges but a tool to turn non-combat situations into a focus on conflict?  Goals are set, success and failure conditions are established.  That quote "...let the players get to the adventure, and get to the fun" from James Wyatt emphasized the focus on conflict over color, which is why it became such a sticking point in the Edition Wars.I believe that's why the loss of wizards and Vancian magic ultimately led to the rejection of 4e by so many.  For those of us who love conflict play, we understood that wizards were the most powerful class because they had an incomparable ability to render conflict moot.  A well played wizard is the ultimate tool for color focused play.  A wizard epitomizes the triumph of logistics and planning (a hallmark of color based play) over plot challenges.</blockquote>

Verification