Re: What was the first RPG?

[mcarmack@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack)]

Darin Johnson (djohnson@tartarus.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: mcarmack@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) writes:
: > I think you'll get a lot of varying answers, but here's my general definition.

: You said "general".  Does this mean there are exceptions?

Yes, there are bound to be some exceptions.  Most of the time I have trouble
when a game borrows elements from other game genres, such as the so-called
"action-RPGs" on console systems.  Legend of Zelda plays like a video
game, but it has many RPG-like elements, for example.  

: > In an RPG, the player gets a chance to create his character to suit
: > his/her tastes.  At minimum this involves choosing a name, and ideally a
: > race, class, even a picture if the graphics can support it.

: What about "rpg" games where you are given a character to start with
: (or multiple ones).  What about ones where you have a small set of
: characters to choose from rather than create your own?  Al'Qadim,
: The Genie's Curse didn't give you a character choice, and most would
: call that RPG (probably says that on the box).  I guess there are
: exceptions to this rule.

I mentioned this in my original post.  I have trouble calling these RPGs,
although I understand why they are.  I used Betrayal at Krondor as an
example of one I have trouble with.  But Al'Qadim -- no problem.  It is
NOT a full RPG, but I'm willing to call it an action-RPG.  (I'm playing it
right now as a matter of fact, and my first impression of it was, "Wow, an
Arabian Legend of Zelda!")

: > There should
: > be some numerical statistics involved to the character, including
: > strength, intelligence, agility, hit points, etc.  (They could be called
: > something else, of course, but we all know what they mean.)

: Hmm, there are probably some non-computer RPG's that don't have
: these...  What does "Amber" use?  I take it this is optional too.

Can't say I've played more than a handful of pen-n-paper RPGs, and that
was many many years ago.  But we are talking about CRPGs here (I thought
that was understood, this is a computer games newsgroup after all).  The
game aspects that classify a game as a CRPG are bound to differ from a true
pen-n-paper RPG.  (This Amber game, it it based on Roger Zelazny's Amber
series of books?)

: > Some or all
: > of these statistics should be able to improve over time, e.g. by gaining
: > experience levels or some other method of advancement.

: Why is this integral to RPG's?  (and not just computer ones)  Sure,
: it's ubiquitous, but surely it doesn't need to be required.

I think it is required, but that's strictly a game design issue.  Small
boons such as hit point raises and new spells give a player a feeling of
growth.  It's also a simple way to set goals, e.g. have a really cool
magic item guarded by a monster too powerful to defeat until the character
reaches a higher level. 

: > You should be able
: > to equip your character(s) with different weapons and armor which will
: > affect your luck in combat.

: Unless of course, you roleplay something that doesn't deal with
: combat.  Pen-and-paper RPG's certainly don't require combat.
: (talking RPG here, most CRPG's are *soley* combat)

They don't require it, but I think most RPG-players want *some* combat. 
It's usually interesting for the first half of the game while you're
trying to figure out what the heck is going on.  But once you've
established some solid goals, or once you've become so immensely powerful
that nothing can stop you (poor game design in this case), then the combat
only gets in the way.

: > Finally, you need to have some interaction
: > with NPCs, even if it's as basic as getting the quests from the kings in
: > Ultima I.

: Guess this rules out Rogue, Temple of Apshai, Wizardry(?), and plenty
: of others.

Never played Rogue.  Temple of Apshai I played for an hour on my ancient
Apple ][ before I trashed that piece of crap.  And Wizardry did have some
very basic interaction, i.e. with the shopkeeper, the priests in the
temple, even the monsters (you could try to be nice to them and avoid
combat, as I recall).  This is VERY basic, but that's what I meant.

: > I really don't see a need for much combat, except as a means to
: > gain experience and to make the game more exciting.

: Gosh, to gain experience?  Most role playing games give experience
: in other ways (ie, for having good play sessions, completing
: adventures, or for just role playing well).

Again, let's stick to CRPGs.  There are simply a lot of aspects to real
RPGs that CRPGs cannot yet implement.  (Someday, though...)

The only CRPGs to date that I've played that grant experience for anything
other than combat are:  1) Ultima Underworld 1 and 2 grant experience for
mapping new parts of the dungeon.  This is excellent, but still most of
your expernece comes from combat.  2) Al'Qadim grants XP for fulfilling
sub-quests, but most of the time it seems rather arbitrary and pointless. 
But then again, I think it plays more like a video game than an RPG;  the
entire stats system seems tacked on just to give it the AD&D flavor.

: I can think of exceptions to all of these rules for games
: that some consider CRPG's (or even real paper RPG's).  I guess
: it still boils down to "I can't describe it, but I'll know it
: when I see it".

There will always be exceptions and other opinions.  I can live with that,
as I said these are what I go by.  But it seems to be like you're unfairly
expecting CRPGs to look, act, feel, and play like a real RPG.  You'll
NEVER find a good CRPG by that criteria.
-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us