VERSALIA'S PROFILE

author=Cosmic_Sea
I just thought of an idea, every new continent will have at least one portn, which will be the city you first arrive at, and you have to exchange your current currency for that nations official, and i is not always equal sometimes you end with more, sometimes less.

That sucks because it will never be fun for the player to lose money for no reason other than going to a different place in the world :(

It also adds the unnecessary confusion of having to remember all kinds of currencies and be unable to visit shops without a first stop for preparation. (Shit, why can't I buy anything here? Oh right. I have to exchange my f#*&ing cash argh!)

On the flipside, there ARE places where the currency gets stronger, I'm sure - but this is really just analogous to that place having lower shop prices.

author=LockeZ
Uh, 25 is not an old fogy, at least not unless everyone else is less than 7 years old. To be an old fogy you have to be old, and a fogy. Not... just gotten married and working on your master's degree while you struggle in your first real job.

In fact, I think the fact that heroes below the age of 25 are even acceptable, much less the standard, should be... oh, it's already on this list. Okay then!

Anyway, this is a pretty good list! You will receive your first sword from your grandpa, hahahaha. Yes. Always.

holy crap did you miss the point.

25 is an old fogey





by cliche RPG standards

edit: thank you for linking the list I was thinking of so I didn't have to look for it

edit edit: amusing side conversation spawned from this:
'if you're 25 you'll die of old age before the end of the game'
'nobody wants to see wrinkly old 30 year olds getting it on'

The earnest/clueless female lead MUST BE one or more of the following:

-A staff wielder
-A white mage
-A Princess
-The last surviving member of an ancient race

and do not forget

12. The spunky child

author=LockeZ
Holy shit a constructive post that gives examples of how to modify, exclude or subvert common gameplay elements while still creating a fun game that will be attractive to people who like RPGs. I am blown away.

Quick, lock the topic before it reverts to semantic bickering again.

(I like Shinan's post)

Yessss. My point.

Pointless post:

- A currency of some kind.
- At least one playable character with stats that must evolve (even if its one stat).
- An inventory of some kind or form.
- Battles of some kind or form.
- Interactive NPC's (not like the kind in shooters, these guys need A-button initialization).
- Some form of exploration.
- Some form of quests, missions, goals, objectives. (Read: Not necessarily "story").

Awesome post:
Shinan

GOLD STAR FOR THE DAY

author=LockeZ
If you know exactly what an RPG is, you will know exactly how to best subvert that definition?

...But there is no single definition. You are acting like there is some kind of rigid steel structure framework that is the concrete, set example for you to bust out of. Perhaps it's the commercial games you're trying to define, given the quote below.

This conversation is not really trying to understand mechanics, from what I can see. What I have seen is people trying to make a bullet list of mechanics that belong to an RPG and not the design choices involved in using them and why they're so frequently used in that context.

Lockez
That's a tangential issue; the core of what bothers me isn't the mindset of the big game companies, but rather the mindset of players, and the resulting assumption - often subconsciously, even by amateur designers - that making your games (similar to commercial games) actually makes them objectively better games.

I think discussing a hard definition is really just going to encourage this type of mindset - thinking of that definition as what RPGs should be (and, apparently, thinking of that definition as something restrictive that you therefore need to subvert to be creative). I'd like to see more discussion about WHY and HOW these mechanics are used - and not just what they are.

Why is it so important that in an RPG the abilities are Avatar-centric, and not Player-centric? Point: A large part of playing an RPG is that the 'role' you're playing is immersed in a world that reacts to and is affected by your avatar. Their skills and abilities, even equipment, are a huge chunk of individuality and personality reflected onto that avatar and their role in this world that most players expect from an RPG.

But I don't think I could point at a game that doesn't use this and definitively say "well then it's not an RPG," and I don't think I should try. It's been repeated over and over that nobody can ever really agree on the concrete definition...

An RPG isn't just 1 thing that defines it. As I stated, and it is obviously correct as there are MANY things that can define the genre. It is like saying there is only 1 defining feature, word or whatever that explains the genre of music known as Metal. When in reality, it is thousands of things that define it. This whole argument as to what it is, is so pointless. Like that one person talking about stats and skills. That is one common factor most people use, but it isn't the major thing about it.

Counterpoint: You post it