Ideas on roleplay ideas without main storyline & settlements?

[phillout]

1 hour ago, nanashi50 said:

I'll be more constructive here and not argue about what mechanics an RPG needs have, because even Skyrim wasn't very reactive, so I'll take anything that gives more freedom in FO4.

 

Granted, it wasn't as reactive to player's actions as, let's say, classic Black Isle titles (Fallouts, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate series), but it's still there. You could join, for example, the Thieves Guild and help them to rebuild the Guild from ashes. Throw in something like "Thieves Guild Requirements" - and the game doesn't rush you through the quest line, instead you have to side step a lot - but you still have that progress and the feeling of accomplishment in the end of the long journey. And Requiem makes it an absolutely amazing experience.

 

Of course, there are problems, like you don't actually see the impact on the rest of the world, there is no epic ending like "become a Godfather of Skyrim" - where you exterminate Black Briars and take over the whole black/gray business operations in the province. But it's still better than having no development at all,  like what we have in FO4.  Aside from settlements building and the MQ, you make no impact on the world at all. There is a couple of rather short side quest, like the Diamond City Blues, but you can't shape your character around the story line 

 

Edit: speaking of crimes - you can't RP a thief in FO4 either. Because Beth didn't bother implementing some bounty/punishment system. I once stole a piece of junk (literally), was spotted and guess what guards did? They just shot me. Shot me dead. Yep. For stealing a piece of junk. Seriously, game... Nothing you steal gets marked as stolen either, so no fences needed - you can sell it to any merchant.

 

@dagobaking 

 

I don't just have a "sense" - sense is from the realms of emotions. I'm trying to formalize what RPG stands for, how you can say that game X is an RPG. If you have another definition - please share it, if you will. Before you even start - many games have quests, and it doesn't mean they are RPGs. There is a whole class of games called "quest games" - like those used to be made by Sierra. 

[dagobaking]

3 hours ago, nanashi50 said:

I'll be more constructive here and not argue about what mechanics an RPG needs have, because even Skyrim wasn't very reactive, so I'll take anything that gives more freedom in FO4.

 

But here is a serious question: what does FROSTFALL add? I understand it's hardcore survival and takes out the MQ, but what are you supposed to do? If it's just surviving, I can't say I'd get much enjoyment from that. And more importantly I can already play without touching the MQ via Start Me Up. The problem is (as mentioned in the first post), there isn't much left to do when you take out the MQ. Is FROSTFALL any different in that regard?

 

It doesn't add by itself. That's why I was pointing out the other quest mods. FROST removes the MQ that you do not like and third party mods replace it with new content.

 

The CK that Fallout works from is almost identical to the one that Skyrim works from. So it's RP capabilities are basically the same. Quests are made the same way. Leveling up the same. Factions the same. Etc.

 

3 hours ago, phillout said:

@dagobaking 

 

I don't just have a "sense" - sense is from the realms of emotions. I'm trying to formalize what RPG stands for, how you can say that game X is an RPG. If you have another definition - please share it, if you will. Before you even start - many games have quests, and it doesn't mean they are RPGs. There is a whole class of games called "quest games" - like those used to be made by Sierra. 

 

I'm referring to opinion rather than emotion. Having an opinion about what an RPG should be is not to have knowledge of a formal definition. I don't believe that there is any dictionary or governing body that has formalized what that term means.

 

The Sierra games are not what would first come to my mind either. But, I do think they arguably are one form of RPG. You are given a role and you proceed through a story/game and make decisions along the way.

 

Again, I think you prefer something that is maybe more flexible than a Sierra game. That's understandable. But, then, you have also commented a lot on the quest lines of Skyrim versus the quest lines of Fallout. Skyrim has a larger number of quest lines and more ability to jump into new ones at any time you like. Fallout has fewer numbers of quest lines and the entry points for them are more defined. But, as noted to nanashi50, they were both built from the same engine. So, we are really talking about content choices. Not the capabilities of the game. That is why I refer to FROST and third party mods in Fallout. Because what you are interested in IS achievable in Fallout. It may arguably not be realized at this point. But, that's subjective depending on if someone finds the new mod content interesting or not.

[phillout]

53 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I'm referring to opinion rather than emotion. Having an opinion about what an RPG should be is not to have knowledge of a formal definition. I don't believe that there is any dictionary or governing body that has formalized what that term means.

 

You can't have a logical discussion and have any conclusion about something you can't define. The only outcomes possible for talking about opinions are "let's agree to disagree" and "your opinion sucks, I go home". No point in talking at all.

 

Wake me up when you are ready to be logical about the issue discussed. For now, though, you are busy trying to prove people that Fallout 4 is just as good RPG as Skyrim w/o bothering to define what RPG means.

[dagobaking]

2 hours ago, phillout said:

You can't have a logical discussion and have any conclusion about something you can't define. The only outcomes possible for talking about opinions are "let's agree to disagree" and "your opinion sucks, I go home". No point in talking at all.

 

Wake me up when you are ready to be logical about the issue discussed. For now, though, you are busy trying to prove people that Fallout 4 is just as good RPG as Skyrim w/o bothering to define what RPG means.

 

It's not very logical to suggest that there is an authoritative definition of what an RPG has to be when there, in fact, is no such definition.

 

That does not mean that, for the sake of discussion, you can't tell us the way that you define it so that we can understand what your point is.

 

Your claim about what I am trying to do is in conflict with my previous post. I pointed out big differences between Skyrim and Fallout in terms of their vanilla RPG elements. But, those differences have nothing to do with whether or not they are defined correctly as RPG. It is about the different content design decisions that Bethesda made on two different RPG. Furthermore, I have made the point that they both work off of a nearly identical engine that is almost 100% open to public modding. So, they are both equally capable of providing RP elements. That is a technical fact.

[ercramer69]

 

Well the first quote is from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/role-playing-game.  The second quote is what Google gives right off the bat when doing a search on what is the definition of role-playing game.

 

Quote

role-playing game

 

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

a game in which participants adopt the roles of imaginary charactersin an adventure under the direction of a Game Master.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2018.
Cite This Source

British Dictionary definitions for role-playing gameExpand

role-playing game

noun

1.

a game in which players assume the roles of fantasy characters

 

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source

Quote

role-play·ing game

noun

 

1. a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.

 

So based off those definitions Fallout 4 is a Role-Playing Game.  

From the first definition the character of Nate/Nora does meet the role of an imaginary character and the programing from Bethesda meets the role of the Game Master.

From the second definition once again the character of Nate/Nora does meet the role of fantasy charactes.

From the third definition once again the character of Nate/Nora does meet the rold of imaginary characters and the programing from Behesda meets the role of a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.

 

Now the biggest difference/hang-up between Fallout 4 when compared to other titles such as Dragon Age, FO3, FNV, Oblivion and Skyrim is that the character background is much less defined in the latter three.  In Dragon Age there are many defined backgrounds depending on the options chosen at character creation.  In FO3 the only thing defined in the background is your mother died at child birth, your father abandoned you in the vault and a couple of minor scenes from your childhood.  In FNV the only thing defined is your job and that you got shot and left for dead while doing your job.  In both Oblivion and Skyrim the only thing defined is you start off as a prisoner.  While FO4 has defined that Nate and Nora are married with a new born son, Nate was in the Army and was a hero or something similar as he is supposed to be giving a speech, Nora is a lawyer (and really you only find that out if you go around clicking on every object you can interact with, if you never click on the degree sitting on the shelf or listen to the holotape left by Nate/Nora "Hi Honey"), Nate/Nora gets killed and Shaun kidnapped while you get to watch it happen.

 

So while I personally could care less if anyone says FO4 is or is not a RPG, based off the definitions found from a Google search FO4 is a RPG.  It does meet the requirements to be classified as a RPG.  All of the games I listed meet the requirements of a RPG, its just that in FO4 not as much is left to the imagination of the player as it is in the other titles.

 

Now the original question was answered in between all the arguing of what a RPG is and if FO4 is a RPG.  Granted the options suggested are mods and they might not be up to what ones standards are, but I'd like to point out that mods are what make Skyrim what it is these days.  And while FO4 might not have the mods to make it stand up to Skyrim at this time, there are great modders out there working on content for FO4 just as there are still great modders out there workng on content for Skyrim.

 

If we are being honest here if it wasn't for SSE coming out like 6 months after FO4 was released, it is possible that modders might have made FO4 the game people hoped for upon hearing of its release date.  

 

 

 

 

tl;dr by google search results of RPG definition FO4 does meet the criteria to be a RPG

[Invictusblade]

upon reading most of this thread, I think this is a case of "I don't know what i want", that the true role playing experience that people wanted hasn't existed in quite a while.

I was thinking about the older D&D PC games and i liken Skyrim to Baldur's Gate II and Fallout to Icewind Dale II, that they exist for similar (but different) audiences.

 

[NNS10]

16 hours ago, nanashi50 said:

I'll be more constructive here and not argue about what mechanics an RPG needs have, because even Skyrim wasn't very reactive, so I'll take anything that gives more freedom in FO4.

 

But here is a serious question: what does FROSTFALL add? I understand it's hardcore survival and takes out the MQ, but what are you supposed to do? If it's just surviving, I can't say I'd get much enjoyment from that. And more importantly I can already play without touching the MQ via Start Me Up. The problem is (as mentioned in the first post), there isn't much left to do when you take out the MQ. Is FROSTFALL any different in that regard?

12 hours ago, dagobaking said:

 

It doesn't add by itself. That's why I was pointing out the other quest mods. FROST removes the MQ that you do not like and third party mods replace it with new content.

 

The CK that Fallout works from is almost identical to the one that Skyrim works from. So it's RP capabilities are basically the same. Quests are made the same way. Leveling up the same. Factions the same. Etc.

 

I[...]

 

That is why I refer to FROST and third party mods in Fallout. Because what you are interested in IS achievable in Fallout. It may arguably not be realized at this point. But, that's subjective depending on if someone finds the new mod content interesting or not.

I can achieve what FROST does simply by just not pursuing the MQ in the game (via Start Me Up). In fact, it looks like FROST doesn't even have an alternate start built in. But regardless, I can just ignore the MQ myself so I'm not sure how FROST will help achieve what I'm interested in. If FROST completely strips out the MQ, I assume it also strips out factions?

 

As for third party quest mods, do you have any specific ones to recommend? Open to any mods that can help fix the roleplay content issue. I've tried Fusion City Rising since it was advertised as a huge DLC-sized quest mod, and while I enjoyed the large battles and some of the story (via terminals), I was ultimately disappointed in its roleplay potential. It was very much a linear guided-rails shooter experience. The story had no choices, and there wasn't much choice in how you completed the quests either. If your character wasn't built for frontal assaults, it would have been difficult to complete.

[NNS10]

This deserves a separate post. Let me give a few example of roleplays and how it gives the player a reason to do things. These examples will be from Skyrim. But the core idea is the character has a motivation which drives a goal (or multiple goals). The game world needs to have activities or mechanisms to enable satisfying those goals though. Mods can help there.

 

Example: The Hunted
Mods Required: Sinister Seven
Motivation: Escape or survive the pursuers
Goal 1: Get strong
Goal 2: Seek protection until strong enough to stand alone against pursuers
Activity 1: Join the Mage's Guild to learn magic and get stronger
Activity 2: Seek protection within the walls of the Mage's Guild. The gated entrance also helps.

While playing through, Activity 1 then will create a new goal.

Goal 3: Get septim (to pay for magic training and magic tomes -- for the sake of getting stronger)

Example: Bandit Hunter
Mods Required: None. Notice Board / Missives optional. Enemy Encounter optional.
Motivation: Revenge/hatred against bandits that killed the character's comrades/family/etc
Goal 1: Kill bandits
Goal 2: Get stronger (so more bandits can be killed)
Activity 1: Take bounty quests
Activity 2: Travel around Skyrim to thin out bandits in each area
Roleplay rule 1: As a wanderer, always stay in inns.
Roleplay rule 2: As character's success and kill count grows, never stay in one town for too long as bandits are also looking to take out the famed bandit hunter. (Enemy Encounter mod can help w/ the ambush part there)

Example: Indebted Guardian
Mods Required: Loan Sharks, Tax of the Nine Holds. Katixas Ciderhouse Restaurant, Heljarchen Farm
Motivation: Under a lot of debt (loan sharks), and also a lot of expenses from kids (tax mod)
Goal: Earn gold
Activity 1: Earn a living by either blacksmithing or alchemy.
Roleplay Development: Blacksmithing and alchemy are turning out to not be enough.
Roleplay Decision: To earn more gold, character can decide to either (1) start a business or (2) take on some bounty quests. Starting a business is safer but requires some capital and may involve getting deeper into debt first. Taking on bounties requires no capital but is risky.
Impact on character: This decision will depend on your character's personality. How risk averse is she? How about the kids? How far is she willing to go? There are other less risky and immediate ways to earn money as well via other mods...

 

 

 

Those are just some examples from Skyrim, with a lot of help from mods. For FO4, I am at a loss for any type of roleplay debt. The Commonwealth is simply too empty. Even the most simple of roleplays as a bounty hunter is difficult as there is only one reliable source of bounties in the Commonwealth, and that is Diamond City (if using the Bountiful Bounties mod). But the bounty hunter roleplay is pretty shallow and in skyrim all that involved was traveling around, which you can't even do in FO4 because there's only one source of bounties.

 

The vanilla game's "role play" is also pretty bad. Let's analyze that for a second and look at how convoluted the entire game is.

 

Example: Nora
Goal: Find Shaun (urgent!)
Motivation: Her son was kidnapped while she was in Vault 111!
Activity: Finding clues for Shaun and going on a long goose hunt (MQ)
Side Activity: Rebuild the minutemen and go help other settlements (b/c Shaun can wait?)
Side Activity: Join the Railroad as a secret agent and help free synths! (b/c abolition > shaun??)
Side Activity: Join the Brotherhood of Steel! (...b/c BoS >>> Shaun????)

As you can see, that's why the vanilla game is terrible even if you wanted to roleplay as Nora or Nate.

[dagobaking]

6 hours ago, ercramer69 said:

 

Well the first quote is from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/role-playing-game.  The second quote is what Google gives right off the bat when doing a search on what is the definition of role-playing game.

Thank you for posting this. This is the way I define it having played RPGs since before video games existed.

 

To be fair though, I'm not sure if dictionary.com or Google are necessarily authorities on a term like RPG. It's not like there is a linguistic etymology or grand board of role player leaders to refer to. But, I think they are on point with how it is popularly understood.

2 hours ago, nanashi50 said:

 

 

I can achieve what FROST does simply by just not pursuing the MQ in the game (via Start Me Up). In fact, it looks like FROST doesn't even have an alternate start built in. But regardless, I can just ignore the MQ myself so I'm not sure how FROST will help achieve what I'm interested in. If FROST completely strips out the MQ, I assume it also strips out factions?

 

As for third party quest mods, do you have any specific ones to recommend? Open to any mods that can help fix the roleplay content issue. I've tried Fusion City Rising since it was advertised as a huge DLC-sized quest mod, and while I enjoyed the large battles and some of the story (via terminals), I was ultimately disappointed in its roleplay potential. It was very much a linear guided-rails shooter experience. The story had no choices, and there wasn't much choice in how you completed the quests either. If your character wasn't built for frontal assaults, it would have been difficult to complete.

 

I believe one of the criticisms is that you can't proceed through the game without being hooked into the MQ. FROST removes the situations that cause that so that you aren't reminded that you are ignoring a questline while pursuing a different RP narrative.

 

I actually have not tried FROST. I end up spending all of my time coding mods instead of playing the game.  But, from what I've read in its description it has revised the factions in some way.

 

The whole reason why this thread caught my interest is that I have an idea for a mod that is kind of like an interactive layer on top of a FROST-like removal of MQ content. Basically, like a Civilization layer with warring factions. So, you would have a map of the commonwealth that shows how much territory each faction holds and that can dynamically change over the course of a play-through and depending on the players influence (assassinating leaders, becoming a leader, building up bases for one side, etc.). The idea being to make the game different every play-through so that it gets some of that addictive quality that Civilization has.

 

I was curious to understand if that kind of experience would satisfy what you are looking for from an RPG.

[NNS10]

34 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I believe one of the criticisms is that you can't proceed through the game without being hooked into the MQ. FROST removes the situations that cause that so that you aren't reminded that you are ignoring a questline while pursuing a different RP narrative.

 

I actually have not tried FROST. I end up spending all of my time coding mods instead of playing the game.  But, from what I've read in its description it has revised the factions in some way.

I looked into FROST a bit more. It's not that it removes the MQ quest references; it's that it removes all quests, period. There is only one goal: survive. I checked some gameplay footage. That is literally the quest the mod gives (survive).

 

It seems it might add more underground spaces, since most of the gameplay is underground. It seems you're not meant to go to the surface often because of radiation. So yeah... wouldn't really use FROST unless you are going for a nuclear fallout survival playthrough. The goal of the mod is to see how long you survive. Death is assumed to be just a matter of time.

 

34 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

The whole reason why this thread caught my interest is that I have an idea for a mod that is kind of like an interactive layer on top of a FROST-like removal of MQ content. Basically, like a Civilization layer with warring factions. So, you would have a map of the commonwealth that shows how much territory each faction holds and that can dynamically change over the course of a play-through and depending on the players influence (assassinating leaders, becoming a leader, building up bases for one side, etc.). The idea being to make the game different every play-through so that it gets some of that addictive quality that Civilization has.

 

I was curious to understand if that kind of experience would satisfy what you are looking for from an RPG.

It would definitely be a really interesting mod, and it could help enable certain types of roleplays.

 

In my examples above, you'll see that different roleplays used different mods. The way I see it, gameplay mechanics and content are what enable roleplaying. Roleplaying itself involves creating a character with goals and motivations. Then it's a matter of how fleshed out the world is to enable that character to do what drives them.

 

So different types of roleplays would need different types of activities. Your mod is a great gameplay idea and it would also make the game world change and react. And if it does enough (like adding dynamic battlefields, faction patrols, turning some areas into dangerous raider zones post-battle, etc), I think that will be a great immersive addition to any playthrough. Even if the roleplay is for a character that doesn't want to get involved in the faction wars, if the wars affect the game world, it'll still have a place in the load order as the mod would likely impact how the roleplayed character gets by in the game world.

[dagobaking]

10 minutes ago, nanashi50 said:

It would definitely be a really interesting mod, and it could help enable certain types of roleplays.

 

In my examples above, you'll see that different roleplays used different mods. The way I see it, gameplay mechanics and content are what enable roleplaying. Roleplaying itself involves creating a character with goals and motivations. Then it's a matter of how fleshed out the world is to enable that character to do what drives them.

 

So different types of roleplays would need different types of activities. Your mod is a great gameplay idea and it would also make the game world change and react. And if it does enough (like adding dynamic battlefields or faction patrols), I think that will be a good immersive addition to playthrough. Even if the roleplay is for a character that doesn't want to get involved in the faction wars, if the wars affect the game world, it'll still have a place in the load order as the mod would likely impact how the roleplayed character gets by in the game world.

Yes. Exactly the idea. You could choose to not interfere with the warring factions and it would still be a different backdrop each play-through. One time the raiders dominate the world. Another they just control a small territory and pester the others.

 

Interesting. Do you prefer to know what your long-term role is going to be from the beginning? For me, what I liked about Skyrim was that your story could change unexpectedly multiple times. For example, you might think you are just doing some ordinary quests here and there but end up becoming a werewolf mid-game. In vanilla Fallout 4 you kind of get locked onto rails and you later say "I would like to do this now. But, I already went down this other path long ago and can't change now."

[NNS10]

11 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Interesting. Do you prefer to know what your long-term role is going to be from the beginning?

I think part of a proper roleplay is that you develop the story as you play (which is why a fleshed out, reactive open world is important). The roleplay should just be setting the initial motivations and goals, and then you see how things go as the character takes actions and makes decisions. Afterall, any story needs progress. To keep a long roleplay interesting, new developments need to happen.

 

In my Indebted Guardian example, the character may start as a civilian alchemist but then turn to high-risk bounty hunting to pay the bills. However, given Skyrim isn't all that reactive/dynamic, sometimes you need to craft the problems yourself (or lead the character into it) if there is no mod to do it for you.

[phillout]

@ercramer69

 

This "definition" is so much broad it's not a definition at all. I can "assume a role of an immortal ruler" in Civilization, I can "assume a role of a student pilot" in MS Flight Simulator. I can "assume a role of a space marine" in DOOM.

 

Are they role-playing games now?

 

Practically every game is a role-playing game then. Hence RPGs as a separate genre simply don't exist.

 

P.S. Gosh, just 5 years ago people were using logic for real. We were having discussions with real arguments, pointing out each others' fallacies. And now everything is "just an opinion". Whenever the Earth is flat or round - is an "opinion". I do find the fact that people don't search for objective truth anymore disturbing. But... whatever.

[ercramer69]

1 hour ago, phillout said:

@ercramer69

 

This "definition" is so much broad it's not a definition at all. I can "assume a role of an immortal ruler" in Civilization, I can "assume a role of a student pilot" in MS Flight Simulator. I can "assume a role of a space marine" in DOOM.

 

Are they role-playing games now?

 

Practically every game is a role-playing game then. Hence RPGs as a separate genre simply don't exist.

 

P.S. Gosh, just 5 years ago people were using logic for real. We were having discussions with real arguments, pointing out each others' fallacies. And now everything is "just an opinion". Whenever the Earth is flat or round - is an "opinion". I do find the fact that people don't search for objective truth anymore disturbing. But... whatever.

I've never played the games you mentioned but I'm assuming in those games you don't actually have a character creation portion, whereas the games I mentioned you do, so if there isn't a character creation portion in Civilization or MS Flight Simulator I would say no they do not classify as a Role-Playing Game.  

 

To  me you are spouting your opinion as facts but you haven't produced any information to back your opinion.  But I digress, I was not looking to get into a heated discussion with you over your opinion of what constitutes a RPG.  I simply made the post I made because neither you nor Dagobaking posted what the definition of a RPG is.  Are the definitions I provided broad, sure but then again RPG's are a broad subject ranging from table-top set in fantasy settings where pen, paper and dice are required, to Live Action Role-Playing where elaborate costumes are required to the ever growing popularity of computer based where companies provide a fantasy setting.

 

You speak of wanting a logical discussion but all you say is you want to everyone to back up their opinions with logic and proof to back that logic up, while all you posts come across as (paraphrasing here) nope your wrong that isn't right, I'm right you just have to accept that cause you didn't prove me wrong.

 

So why don't you prove me wrong, produce your logical front of what a Role-Playing Game is with the proof to back it up.  Once you do that and provide something I can produce counterpoints to if any exist then I will happily engage you and others in a discussion with real arguments.  But until then your "(paraphrasing here) nope your wrong that isn't right, I'm right you just have to accept that cause you didn't prove me wrong" can just stop.  

 

Have a wonderful day!!

[phillout]

3 hours ago, ercramer69 said:

I've never played the games you mentioned but I'm assuming in those games you don't actually have a character creation portion, whereas the games I mentioned you do, so if there isn't a character creation portion in Civilization or MS Flight Simulator I would say no they do not classify as a Role-Playing Game.  

 

To  me you are spouting your opinion as facts but you haven't produced any information to back your opinion.  But I digress, I was not looking to get into a heated discussion with you over your opinion of what constitutes a RPG.  I simply made the post I made because neither you nor Dagobaking posted what the definition of a RPG is.  Are the definitions I provided broad, sure but then again RPG's are a broad subject ranging from table-top set in fantasy settings where pen, paper and dice are required, to Live Action Role-Playing where elaborate costumes are required to the ever growing popularity of computer based where companies provide a fantasy setting.

 

You speak of wanting a logical discussion but all you say is you want to everyone to back up their opinions with logic and proof to back that logic up, while all you posts come across as (paraphrasing here) nope your wrong that isn't right, I'm right you just have to accept that cause you didn't prove me wrong.

 

So why don't you prove me wrong, produce your logical front of what a Role-Playing Game is with the proof to back it up.  Once you do that and provide something I can produce counterpoints to if any exist then I will happily engage you and others in a discussion with real arguments.  But until then your "(paraphrasing here) nope your wrong that isn't right, I'm right you just have to accept that cause you didn't prove me wrong" can just stop.  

 

Have a wonderful day!!

 

Your definition doesn't say anything about character creation.

 

Come on, there are much better definitions, not as broad as the one you used.

 

Like this

 

Here you go

 

Quote

A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game[1][2] and abbreviated to RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[4]

 

That's what I'm talking about - role-playing mechanics. FPS have shooting mechanics, simulators have simulation mechanics, strategy games have their own mechanics - in order to respond to player's actions.

 

That's why we need a game - for mechanics. We perform actions and the game responds to them in an appropriate way. If you perform wrong actions in a flight simulator - you crash. If you fail shooting and dodging in FPS - your character dies. Who would need a "FPS" that doesn't have stuff to shoot, or who would by an flight sim that doesn't have machines to pilot? "Just sit and imagine yourself flying!".

 

Once again, so I  hopefully get the message sent across: the way the game responds to player's actions defines what genre the game belongs to. I hope it's not too complicated.

 

Just the same, RPGs respond to player's actions and choices made about character, by reacting to them. And the way the game reacts to your action defines what the game is. If the game does not respond to your character's actions, to your alignment, for example - to either your good or evil actions, it's not a role-playing game. 

 

If you go through some quest mod and you're only restricted to a certain path within the quest - it's not a role-playing mod.

 

If you just imagine being some character, but whatever your character does in the game doesn't have any impact on the game state that would reflect your character's choices - it's not a RPG.

 

And what exactly are  the reactions of the game in FO4 to decisions you made during the character's creation? 

[dagobaking]

1. The definition you posted has more words. But, is essentially just as broad as the definition ercramer69 posted.

 

2. You are just giving an opinion that you like that definition better. You have given no reason why that definition is more factual or authoritative.

 

3. Why do you have a problem with discussing opinions? A huge part of human life involves matters of opinion. You're going to have a rough road if you think that every interaction you have should be like an arm wrestling match.

[ercramer69]

1 hour ago, phillout said:

 

Your definition doesn't say anything about character creation.

 

Come on, there are much better definitions, not as broad as the one you used.

 

Like this

 

Here you go

 

 

That's what I'm talking about - role-playing mechanics. FPS have shooting mechanics, simulators have simulation mechanics, strategy games have their own mechanics - in order to respond to player's actions.

 

That's why we need a game - for mechanics. We perform actions and the game responds to them in an appropriate way. If you perform wrong actions in a flight simulator - you crash. If you fail shooting and dodging in FPS - your character dies. Who would need a "FPS" that doesn't have stuff to shoot, or who would by an flight sim that doesn't have machines to pilot? "Just sit and imagine yourself flying!".

 

Once again, so I  hopefully get the message sent across: the way the game responds to player's actions defines what genre the game belongs to. I hope it's not too complicated.

 

Just the same, RPGs respond to player's actions and choices made about character, by reacting to them. And the way the game reacts to your action defines what the game is. If the game does not respond to your character's actions, to your alignment, for example - to either your good or evil actions, it's not a role-playing game. 

 

If you go through some quest mod and you're only restricted to a certain path within the quest - it's not a role-playing mod.

 

If you just imagine being some character, but whatever your character does in the game doesn't have any impact on the game state that would reflect your character's choices - it's not a RPG.

 

And what exactly are  the reactions of the game in FO4 to decisions you made during the character's creation? 

But you see you can't say that FO4 is not a RPG when the quote you gave has the same response as what I had given.  You play the role of Nate/Nora 210 years after a massive war which left the world devastated, which covers your quoted portion of players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

 

Now I do agree your backstory and most events laid out by the storyteller/gamemaster/dungeonmaster (depending on which RPG system you use) in this case Bethesda's story writers is not as open-ended as a lot of great games that exist.

 

However you mention that the game doesn't react to your actions as a player, but that is not true.  If you are playing the game and following the MQ and opt for the Institute as your choice faction then the BOS and RR hate you and will attack on sight.  If you take the RR route then the Synths will still attack as will the BOS on sight.  Chosing a faction is a decision and there are consequences to said decision which in turn, based on your own statement, makes FO4 a RPG.

 

As for the choices made at character creation yes they do make a difference in your abilities.  If you don't have a high enough Perception you will need to raise that score before you get the option to pick locks, or if your Intelligence is low you will need to raise it if you want to hack computers.  Which depending on the RPG system you use can be similar to what is done in FO4.  For instance in the Rifts RPG when you level you gain skills, in the D&D system when you level you gain additional skills based on your class (i.e. spells) or in the Hero Systems RPG's when you have enough experience you can raise character stats or add new powers or skills.  So in that sense FO4 follows the basics of many RPG systems that have existed for years.

 

So looking at your post and what I've pointed out FO4 does tick off all the check boxes of your argument.  

 

The issue at hand isn't that FO4 isn't a RPG, its that your character backstory is forced upon you and the game was designed to push you towards the end goal the creators of the game decided upon.  Which if you look at Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3 or FNV they all were designed with the player going for an end goal.  The major difference between those four and FO4 is the fact that not everything you did tried to force feed the MQ ideal down your throat.

[NNS10]

Can we get past the definitions and just agree that FO4 isn't what we expect from a Bethesda Game Studios open world RPG?

[NNS10]

Anyway, any ideas on how a hitman roleplay might be done? Any mods to support that?

 

Even if Bountiful Bounties was used in place of hit jobs, I'm not sure what use there is for the bottlecaps. Any ideas for how to use money? Skyrim had training and other things, as well as mods to give more uses for money, but I don't think FO4 does.

[phillout]

4 hours ago, ercramer69 said:

But you see you can't say that FO4 is not a RPG when the quote you gave has the same response as what I had given.  You play the role of Nate/Nora 210 years after a massive war which left the world devastated, which covers your quoted portion of players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

 

Now I do agree your backstory and most events laid out by the storyteller/gamemaster/dungeonmaster (depending on which RPG system you use) in this case Bethesda's story writers is not as open-ended as a lot of great games that exist.

 

However you mention that the game doesn't react to your actions as a player, but that is not true.  If you are playing the game and following the MQ and opt for the Institute as your choice faction then the BOS and RR hate you and will attack on sight.  If you take the RR route then the Synths will still attack as will the BOS on sight.  Chosing a faction is a decision and there are consequences to said decision which in turn, based on your own statement, makes FO4 a RPG.

 

The problem is - you can only play a role of Nate/Nora.

 

And if you don't follow the MQ (topic title, hint-hint) - the game stops reacting to your actions in a way RPG should do. You can still run around, kill stuff, collect bobbleheads, read tapes, etc - but the RPG element doesn't work anymore. You can only play "Nate winning  siding with BoS", "Nora sides with RR and wins" etc.

 

And that's exactly the problem, and it has been said here already for more than once. Actually, that's how the topic was started. And that exactly what differs FO4 from Skyrim - in Skyrim you can have a long playthrough where you have a lot of opportunities for character development without ever touching the MQ.

 

edit: OTOH I probably should be glad I'm not going to spend as much time playing FO4 as I spent playing Skyrim. I've wasted enough hours on games already

[ercramer69]

6 hours ago, phillout said:

The problem is - you can only play a role of Nate/Nora.

 

And if you don't follow the MQ (topic title, hint-hint) - the game stops reacting to your actions in a way RPG should do. You can still run around, kill stuff, collect bobbleheads, read tapes, etc - but the RPG element doesn't work anymore. You can only play "Nate winning  siding with BoS", "Nora sides with RR and wins" etc.

 

And that's exactly the problem, and it has been said here already for more than once. Actually, that's how the topic was started. And that exactly what differs FO4 from Skyrim - in Skyrim you can have a long playthrough where you have a lot of opportunities for character development without ever touching the MQ.

 

edit: OTOH I probably should be glad I'm not going to spend as much time playing FO4 as I spent playing Skyrim. I've wasted enough hours on games already

Did I or did I not say:

Quote

The issue at hand isn't that FO4 isn't a RPG, its that your character backstory is forced upon you and the game was designed to push you towards the end goal the creators of the game decided upon.  Which if you look at Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3 or FNV they all were designed with the player going for an end goal.  The major difference between those four and FO4 is the fact that not everything you did tried to force feed the MQ ideal down your throat.

My point is that FO4 is a RPG which you argued against.  I have provided two definitions from a Google search, which you said were weak and provided a third. To which all three definitions proved the point that FO4 is a RPG.

 

7 hours ago, nanashi50 said:

Anyway, any ideas on how a hitman roleplay might be done? Any mods to support that?

 

Even if Bountiful Bounties was used in place of hit jobs, I'm not sure what use there is for the bottlecaps. Any ideas for how to use money? Skyrim had training and other things, as well as mods to give more uses for money, but I don't think FO4 does.

I haven't seen any mods that might support a hitman play and as for caps.  At the beginning of the game caps are used to buy ammo and junk items you might need to get that one ingredient to get that one weapon or armor upgrade, but even those don't need to be bought unless you are looking at using .50 cal ammo because most ammo is easily attained.

 

But the too much money nothing to spend it on happens in most games it seems after you get over that begging of the game hump.

[Invictusblade]

so here is a question for everyone. Is The Witcher 3 an RPG?

[phillout]

7 hours ago, ercramer69 said:

Did I or did I not say:

My point is that FO4 is a RPG which you argued against.  I have provided two definitions from a Google search, which you said were weak and provided a third. To which all three definitions proved the point that FO4 is a RPG.

 

 

My point the whole time was that once you step outside of the MQ - you're not role-playing anymore, the game has nothing to offer in the RP department outside of the MQ.This topic is all about it.  I don't know what you're arguing here. Would you learn the art of reading before replying?

 

4 hours ago, Invictaxe said:

so here is a question for everyone. Is The Witcher 3 an RPG?

 

Well, according to my opponent here - it's not, since it doesn't have a character creation screen.

[ercramer69]

1 hour ago, phillout said:

Well, according to my opponent here - it's not, since it doesn't have a character creation screen.

Actually that is incorrect.  According to my statements it is.  The player assumes the role of a character in a fictional setting.  You, my friend, need to make sure you have your facts straight before making statements of what someone else thinks...

[phillout]

32 minutes ago, ercramer69 said:

Actually that is incorrect.  According to my statements it is.  The player assumes the role of a character in a fictional setting.  You, my friend, need to make sure you have your facts straight before making statements of what someone else thinks...

Hey! This is exactly what you've said:

 

"so if there isn't a character creation portion in Civilization or MS Flight Simulator I would say no they do not classify as a Role-Playing Game."

 

End quote.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist that

 

 

On a serious note this is my biggest gripe with the Witcher series - you can't play anyone but Gerald. I mean - it's a great game, but kind of limited in RP. It's one of those closer to jRPGs, as someone here has noted already. Just as FO4.

 

And I'm not saying games like this suck, should not exist - they just have a very limited replay value. You play them once (and have fun), you play them twice... And that's it. Who wants to watch the same custscenes and travel through the memory of Kellogg for 50th time?