Is it really roleplaying?

[TheFeudalBavarian]

Hah, no worries. I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was attacking your opinions because I know that I how I read what I write vs how others read it sometimes aren't the same. (I think I am way more light hearted about things than my writing conveys).

I think that CK3 will get there. More stories, events, playstyle options will all add to the RPG aspect, but right now, I do think that focus and mechanics fall more squarely in the Strategy game arena with a lite sprinkling of RPG. I am excited for them to start adding elements that begin to shift that focus more towards CRPG concepts.

I want to want to play CK3 to scratch the RP itch, and the potential is definitely there!

EDIT: Okay, what I REALLY want is imperator and stellaris with the CK character concepts, but that may be a few years away!

Fair enough.

I think the grand strategy roleplaying gameplay fits the middle ages very well, not so much the ancient times. The Ancient Roman empire didn't had dynasties in the way the middle ages had them. Roman politicians and officials, of course, where only interested in gaining wealth and status for their own family, but dynasties in the medieval type didn't exist. But in medieval times you had all those ruling dynasties, the Merowinger, the Salier, the Carolingians, the Hohenstaufer, the Plantagenets, the Capetians, the Wittelsbacher, the Luxemburger, the Habsburger....you name them. That is the originality of CK games that they focus on the dynasties and not on nations and that also makes them such a good candidate for a multi-tier-character RPG.

Well, ok.....since Stellaris is future fantasty....yeah sure....add RPG feature. That will work.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I don't know what to say... it seems I have a vastly different experience of CK3 and I just don't recognize the game in what you're describing.
I feel like a lot of you started playing the game by trying to mitigating the effects of certain traits while making sure you always get what you want on your heirs. And then it became a habit... and now you're complaining about the lack of roleplay.

When I play, each character feels different. They have different sources of power and ways to keep (or not to keep) the realm balanced. Some of them will see great conquests, other with experience darker times. Some of them pose different challenges, such as paranoid or shy rulers who tend to stress a lot. And then, there's the general randomness of the game, like when several dynasty members die in a short period of time and you get to play as a character you didn't expect.

Literally, each character fits in a different role. I don't get this argument:

Your avatar then is the one instance that helps to keep the kingdom together, but then again, basically every skilltree can help with that, directly or indirectly.

Well yeah, that's a game, you're not actually roleplaying as a medieval person. In D&D you can roleplay a tiefling mage or a halfling barbarian, but in the end your goal is still to clean dungeons and gain levels. In CK3, your general goal is the survival of your dynasty, and the best way to achieve that is to build a stable, strong realm.

No, your character has certain bonuses that helps in certain ways, and whatever deficits this entails, it can be helped with, no matter the actual nature of said character...

First thing: nothing forces you to pick easy start and build superpowers.
Second thing: yes, the game rewards you for winning, and yes it provides solutions for issues. The contrary could be frustrating.
Third thing: let's not oversimply things. There's always a point in a playthrough where things get a bit tense, unless you make really sure it doesn't by exploiting the game mechanics. Maybe the issue is that you're too used to exploiting the game. If you want challenges and fun things to happen, you have to learn to just... let them happen, without constantly overplaying the game and killing threats before they even happen.
For example, I see many people complaining about how easily they manage to circumvent gavelkind succession and then how easy the game gets... well yeah, you made sure it would be. Maybe roleplay is also not doing that, and making sure your heirs all have good shunks territories. Maybe roleplaying is finding mods or picking game rules that let you set different goals.

 

[DorostheConquer]

Id say role play is more that you lay out the life and adventures of a character within the parameter of as story set in front of you. Roleplay games by their nature have a Dungeon Master or Story teller who weaves his universe around you. A good DM will gently lead you down a path and allow you to make the most of his hooks or content.

Ina PnP setting, a roleplaying game is an exercise in collaborative storytelling. A DM will lead the players along by providing them with a framework, but the responses to the DM's paths are dependent upon the player's own creative agency (and a REALLY good DM will find ways to acommodate that agency, even at the cost of "his" story). The "roleplaying" in the roleplaying genre is the player agency in crafting a story; the "game" is the mediating structure provided by the rules and DM.

CK3 is a video game, so it can't respond as naturally and creatively to player agency as a human DM could, but it can provide a framework in several ways.

The way most people see the "roleplaying element" come through is, I believe, via events. However, these aren't really "roleplaying" opportunities, since events are (by nature) very tightly scripted, and leave little room for player agency. The more elaborate and detailed the event chain is, the less room is left for player agency. You, the player, aren't creating a story, you're being told a story, which I would argue is NOT roleplaying.

However, there is a lot of downtime in CK3, gaps of unmediated activity between triggered events into which the player can freely project his own creative energies. You're kinda left on your own, and it's why some people argue there's not a lot of "game" in CK3, but it's in those periods of aimless gamelessness that you can really get the "roleplaying" part of the game going.


So I'd say:

CK3's roleplaying status is user-dependent. Whether CK3 is or isn't a roleplaying game is entirely up to how you, the player, chooses to engage with it; the degree to which it is (or is not) a roleplaying game, depends solely on the player's willingness to "AAR" - for some players it might offer plenty of roleplaying experiences, for other players it might offer none.

 

[Madfrancis]

Fair enough.

I think the grand strategy roleplaying gameplay fits the middle ages very well, not so much the ancient times. The Ancient Roman empire didn't had dynasties in the way the middle ages had them. Roman politicians and officials, of course, where only interested in gaining wealth and status for their own family, but dynasties in the medieval type didn't exist. But in medieval times you had all those ruling dynasties, the Merowinger, the Salier, the Carolingians, the Hohenstaufer, the Plantagenets, the Capetians, the Wittelsbacher, the Luxemburger, the Habsburger....you name them. That is the originality of CK games that they focus on the dynasties and not on nations and that also makes them such a good candidate for a multi-tier-character RPG.

Well, ok.....since Stellaris is future fantasy....yeah sure....add RPG feature. That will work.

Many of the politicians and officials were from old patrician families. It might not play exactly the same, but the character development could definitely work on some level in other time periods. I think it really falls apart the closer you get to the modern era and beyond. And we'd need quantum desktops to run a stellaris game with galaxies worth of dynasties

The reason I fell in love with CK2, was not because of its historical setting (which I enjoy), but because of the merger between the character management role playing concepts and strategy games. I loved it and now I am greedy and want some form of it in all my strategy games!

 

[Madfrancis]

For example, I see many people complaining about how easily they manage to circumvent gavelkind succession and then how easy the game gets... well yeah, you made sure it would be. Maybe roleplay is also not doing that, and making sure your heirs all have good shunks territories. Maybe roleplaying is finding mods or picking game rules that let you set different goals.

I think deliberately playing a game poorly is a bad metric for what is role playing, personally. If a game needs you to RP so that you have a reason for not easily beating the game, that isn't a very satisfying game let alone RP experience.

Characters in RP games have limitations that enforce certain play styles and tactics. CK3 needs more of these. For example, why can a Coward take any skill they want in the Chivalry tree? Maybe traits should have more of an interplay with what you can do. As it is, they don't (much). Unfortunately, what the AI is capable of is pretty limited, so rules like this would only make the game even more of a cake-walk as it struggles with more complex layers of strategy. Which limits the depth of roleplaying.

I see a lot of people say that game isn't easy if you RP. I guess so, but I'd rather not have to RP in order to pretend like the game offers any challenge at all. I'd prefer to both RP and be challenged, as many good RP games accomplish. The lack of competent NPCs forces you to RP as a bad ruler, rather than bad ruler's stats forcing you to use all your wiles as a player (both mechanically and story wise) to survive.

 

[TheFeudalBavarian]

I think deliberately playing a game poorly is a bad metric for what is role playing, personally. If a game needs you to RP so that you have a reason for not easily beating the game, that isn't a very satisfying game let alone RP experience.

Characters in RP games have limitations that enforce certain play styles and tactics. CK3 needs more of these. For example, why can a Coward take any skill they want in the Chivalry tree? Maybe traits should have more of an interplay with what you can do. As it is, they don't (much). Unfortunately, what the AI is capable of is pretty limited, so rules like this would only make the game even more of a cake-walk as it struggles with more complex layers of strategy. Which limits the depth of roleplaying.

I see a lot of people say that game isn't easy if you RP. I guess so, but I'd rather not have to RP in order to pretend like the game offers any challenge at all. I'd prefer to both RP and be challenged, as many good RP games accomplish. The lack of any competent NPCs forces you to RP as a bad ruler, rather than bad ruler's stats forcing you to use all your wiles as a player (both mechanically and story wise) to survive.

I can't confirm that the game is not easy when you role play. I kinda roleplay according to my character traits as much as I can but sometimes take the stress hit in some situation. I don't think the game is particularly difficult as long as you know what you are doing and aware of the available skill tree work. In that case you can make the game work even with bad or inconvenient character traits. Like I said in another discussion before, you might have to adjust your gameplay style from character to character, but that is not a big deal. In my opinion that just adds to long term motivation and adds variety to the game .

 

[Hackmeister]

Maybe the issue is that you're too used to exploiting the game. If you want challenges and fun things to happen, you have to learn to just... let them happen, without constantly overplaying the game and killing threats before they even happen.

I am actually rather new to this game and I would never "exploit" anything except the pope.

 

[volcaniclastic]

I think deliberately playing a game poorly is a bad metric for what is role playing, personally. If a game needs you to RP so that you have a reason for not easily beating the game, that isn't a very satisfying game let alone RP experience.

I think in a game like this, "poorly" is super subjective, as is "beating the game". Like someone was saying upthread, even in tabletop games there's a tension between the optimal choices vs. the choices that are appropriate to the character you're playing. Min-maxing and optimal choices are fine, and lots of fun for people, but roleplaying bad decisions for the sake of the story is kinda what RP is all about imo.

 

[Secuter]

I completely agree with you, OP.

However, there is a lot of downtime in CK3, gaps of unmediated activity between triggered events into which the player can freely project his own creative energies. You're kinda left on your own, and it's why some people argue there's not a lot of "game" in CK3, but it's in those periods of aimless gamelessness that you can really get the "roleplaying" part of the game going.

Honestly, I've never been particularly good at role playing in either CK2 or 3. Both you and OP also touched on the problem; most of the events are completely random. Sure, I suppose I could sit around and imagine my character walk around on his lands, inspect the fortifications, drill the troops or something else. The fact is that I can't really be sure that these events will pop at that point, and even if they did - would they actually be interesting when I've seen them for the 100th time? Not really.. I want tangible effects on what I do. Maybe I'm a peaceful ruler who really just want to see his realm prosper through sound economical thinking and learned advice. He will protect his lands with stalwart castles and be a peaceful realm in a sea of turmoil; a safe haven for "critical thinkers" and merchants alike. But the game doesn't actually include any of that, and it can only ever play out in my head which basically means that I might as well not play CK3 because it doesn't actually show any of what I'm imagining. Mostly, CK3 is a game of blobbing, that is the most beneficial way of playing the game and there is very little reason not to; both in terms of up/down sides and also in terms of events and stuff to do.

Adding to that, I also have a great difficulty remembering the various characters. They all act the same and I only really start to remember them when they show up over many events. Like my cousin who kept throwing rotten corpses at my castle. Part of the problem is that there are also events with mayors, bishops and barons - characters who doesn't actually matter. I suppose it would benefit me a lot if the characters had a pretty large sign with their title flag on it. At least that would help me remember where they come from, and I can easier remember the titles than I remember random people who die in short order.
Hell, the problem even extends to the close family. The problem is the absolute bonanza of children. My characters often make a ton of children which is ridiculous. I mostly only remember the heir I want and largely forget of the rest.

Lastly, I'm not really a role player as in playing my character, and that is probably a problem that I have with my self - and the fact that I dislike the suboptimal choice. Still, I don't think that the ways to role play are particularly well made at the moment. I like to role play through politics, schemes and intrigues - not just "I want to murder this or that person". I want schemes to gain a spot on the council. I want counter schemes to figure out who is spying on me. I'd like to be able to actually do stuff on the council and have an influence on the realm; would I want to govern my Chancellor (or any of the other) seasts for the benefit of myself or am I loyal to the realm etc. These are things that could be role played with (in my opinion), not some guesswork on when a random event will fire.


Edit: To those saying that the ambitious trait works as it should: No it does not. Remember, the medieval world revolves around accumulating power with your family. Basically, when you give lands to your sons you also give power to yourself. Losing lands should make you gain stress, or settling for some lower title. But giving lands to your family or loyal vassals empowers the realm, and that is in the interest of an ambitious character who wants to gain power.

 

[Torredebelem]

CK3 is a sandbox game part strategy, part role playing.

Its strength, as in all the other Paradox titles, lies in its sandbox aspect. The story is not pre defined and your actions compounded with a healthy amount of randomness create unique stories to be experienced by the player.
This experience is increased if a player has the taste (I don't discuss if it is good taste or bad taste, but fortunately its my taste) to savour and imagine the character he/she is playing, the events that randomly or semi randomly happen and the choices that character, based on its stats, skills, perks, whatever must make.

As it stands, CK3 still has some serious rough edges (sameness of situations no matter where one plays, limited amount of events, blobbing and painting the map mostly as a final objective in itself independently of the character traits/stats, lack of internal and external threats once the player is more powerful than a count, unbalance in some geographical areas (Byzantium, for instance), unbalanced perks, possibility to create super human dynasties where everyone has super inheritable traits, etc.

But the potencial CK3 has is immense, there are mods that fix many of its present shortcomings and as a final product in its infancy is amazing for the role playing opportunities, for the strategy involved and for the infinite stories the engine is capable of delivering.

 

[zaboli]

Made a similar thread like this, got quite some attention... And I agree with you. Role-playing should not revolve around Random Events.
Random events should be like the chocolate chips on a cookie, not the dough of the cookie.