Nowadays, you can spare resources on all sorts of aspects. Lockpicking can be implemented as a minigame instead of a dice roll, hiting an opponent might be determined by simply letting the player use the weapon and try to attack a fast opponent with it. If an opponent is supposed to be hard to pin down, don't just increase its "dexterity" and call it a day, tweak the AI, make it dodge the player's attacks.

I realize that sensibilities have to change with the times but I find the direction you suggest really, really sad-- even as an action gamer. What it embodies is a shift from abstraction to actualization, and with it comes a drastic narrowing of gameplay. Maybe some would argue that this is focus, but as with the shift from written to spoken dialogue, what you actually get is a loss of choices and strategies. The saddest part about this is that RPGs, like strategy games, have been thought as somewhat more cerebral games, but this shift toward actualization drags the genre out of that realm into one where complexity tends to be trumped by repetition, muscle memory and superior reaction time.

My view is kinda mixed inbetween Wavinator's and TheChubu's. I only got into gaming with the N64, circa `97 (and "rpgs" much later), so I'm a young whippersnapper of a gamer who has been perhaps 'spoiled' by the ease-of-play of games in the early 2000s.

That said, I'm also not too much of a fan over the minigamization of features (TES4:Oblivion's lockpicking was interesting the first time I saw it, but rapidly lost it's interest to me), but I do also appreciate the mixing of real-world-skill with in-game skill. I desire more games to have DeusEx-style interactions where your "game skill" levels like a numerical "Strength" stat have in-game in-world usage beyond just damage dealt. For example, using 'strength' statistics to move physical objects in-game (in non-scripted ways), or to physically break down doors, and using your 'acrobatics' statistic to actually be able to jump higher and move slightly faster.

I want there to be, for lack of a better term, "physics simulations" of the world. I don't want explosives to roll a dice to break a door, nor do I want to only be able to place explosives on doors in a scripted way, nor do I want to play a minigame to blow open the door.
I want the door to require alot of damage to be broken down, but to require that damage to come from explosive sources (so sword-slashes or photon-blasters won't do get you in), that way I can throw an explosive down and let it break the door, or use two or three smaller explosives if I don't want to waste, or don't have, a larger explosive. I want to be able to throw down the explosives near the door, and because they are within the blast radius, the door take explosive damage (reduced the farther away the door is from the explosive).

I'm not talking about realistic physics simulations, I'm talking about in-game "laws of physics" that, realistic or not, are at least self-consistent in that game world. These are the "rules" of the environment that you can, as a player, count on and work with to get around or through obstacles while playing the game.

I also want real-world ability to have direct combat benefits - via action timers, for instance, or aiming of guns, or planning and positioning of yourself and allies to better make use of terrain.

I want in-game skill to be of use throughout the game's 'world' simulations, and I want real-life skill to also benefit the in-game 'combat' simulations. I'm all for using AI for making enemies real-world harder rather than solely numerically in-game tougher.

I'm not saying I want everything to be exactly like Deus Ex (talking of the first and second games - I haven't yet played the most recent addition to the series), nor do I want a twitch-gameplay action game, but I do like first-person action-RPGs that are heavily RPG, and I want to see more interaction with the world and environment in games, even if it means poorer graphics.

I realize that sensibilities have to change with the times but I find the direction you suggest really, really sad-- even as an action gamer. What it embodies is a shift from abstraction to actualization, and with it comes a drastic narrowing of gameplay. Maybe some would argue that this is focus, but as with the shift from written to spoken dialogue, what you actually get is a loss of choices and strategies. The saddest part about this is that RPGs, like strategy games, have been thought as somewhat more cerebral games, but this shift toward actualization drags the genre out of that realm into one where complexity tends to be trumped by repetition, muscle memory and superior reaction time.

On the other hand, it can reduce the role (so to speak) of random numbers in the outcomes of the player's actions (a shift that I'm very much in favour of), as well as allowing the player to take part in those actions beyond simply selecting them.

I do see what you're saying, I believe: removing a globally-applicable mechanic like die-rolling means that each action has either to fit into one of a narrow set of action-types, or be given its own little game at the cost of resources. However, I also think that it has advantages.

As to reducing the cerebral aspect, surely that's a matter of implementation: a matter of how those actions are represented.

Taking inspiration from games like Card Hunter (which I don't use as the example itself simply because I think that it may have more die-rolling than I'd like in such an example), imagine a tactical combat system that provided cards for each available action. The player fills a hand with randomly-selected action cards each turn (I'm not advocating the removal of all randomisation!). The outcome of each card is fixed, with some influence from equipment statistics: for example, playing a "heavy hit" always does seven damage plus your weapon's bonus. The player then selects actions from their cards based on what they deem tactically wise.

There's still a cerebral aspect: using a card now means that you don't have it later, and there's the question of where and how to use a card. Cards might synergise--fire spells gaining a "damage over time" effect when cast on an oil patch, for example.

Im talking about fantasy star, golden sun, even megaman battle network as examples of rpgs.

Golden Sun? I wouldn't really consider it a high point of RPGs. Yea, it's sorta fun, but doesn't really offer anything new worth mentioning.
Also, Golden Sun was released in 2001 - if it's part of the 'golden age', that age must cover a large block of a years.

It was a name thrown in as an example of style.

The saddest part about this is that RPGs, like strategy games, have been thought as somewhat more cerebral games, but this shift toward actualization drags the genre out of that realm into one where complexity tends to be trumped by repetition, muscle memory and superior reaction time.

There is nothing "cerebral" in grinding until you find the weapon with the highest number. Dice rolls are the least cerebral thing there is, you depend on the numbers of your sword and pure dumb luck. MMORPGs are the culmination of such ways of dealing with interactions. Grinding until you can get the highest numbers of the categories of numbers you choose.

I'd take muscle memory over those any day. And I'm not even good at that kind of stuff (you do not want see me playing Guitar Hero).

what you actually get is a loss of choices and strategies.

What? No. Not at all. What you get is to do what before you just pretended to be doing. That's a pure win for me.

Complexity isn't always a good thing. And dice roll mechanics, albeit complex if you want to make them complex, are as shallow as there can be.

I read an article not long ago about how Final Fantasy's design, which set the standard for jRPGs, was really in part informed by how the lone Japanese programmer didn't really understand western P & Ps all that well -- jRPGs were as much the result of a misinterpretation of the western games as much as the result of an artistic interpretation.

Interesting! If you know the link, I'd be interested in reading it (couldn't find it myself).

I remember, in those low-information days, reading through cheap mail-order game catalogues and trying to picture what the games were from short text descriptions. I can remember what I thought Tetris was... I was *kinda* close, but the game I was picturing wasn't Tetris. (That'd be a fun jam, going through short text descriptions of other games and trying to make the game you're picturing. You could do it like Telephone and see how far away the game evolves from the original.)

Anyway, Final Fantasy had a sort of charming minimalism to it: a pinhole-camera view of the RPG, or a blind-man-feeling-an-elephant view. It's just that it's been cloned so many times; it's tough to get the same juice out of that one slice of the RPG orange.

There is nothing "cerebral" in grinding until you find the weapon with the highest number.

Certainly, I'd agree with you if grinding until you find the weapon with the highest number was what previous RPGs were all about.

Dice rolls are the least cerebral thing there is, you depend on the numbers of your sword and pure dumb luck.

In simpler RPGs I can see this, as it would suggest that there would be no parallel strategies with trade-offs. The best you could maybe expect is the thrill of gambling. In more complex RPGs, the cerebral part comes from the typically slower, deliberative consideration of the risks (to assets, resources, or of outright failure) of different approaches.

These same pathways can technically exist in a more actualized RPG, but typically don't because actualizing gameplay is significantly more resource intensive for developers, so you get less choices, and the choices you do get tend not to have much depth.

I'd take muscle memory over those any day

I would too if that were the only choice! :D

What you get is to do what before you just pretended to be doing.

But can you really ever get away from pretending? If, say, for combat you prefer hit boxes and ray casting timed to your mouse or controller input, you're typically still rolling dice to some degree unless it's a purely deterministic simulation--which most action RPGs aren't. And since no RPG AIs that I know of implement a simulation of human vision, randomization is typically used in everything from aiming to awareness of the player.

Complexity isn't always a good thing. And dice roll mechanics, albeit complex if you want to make them complex, are as shallow as there can be.

I agree complexity isn't always good, and simulation and randomization can always be done poorly. But the actualized approach has delivered a deluge of facile, depthless gameplay dominated by combat and cinematics-- slider puzzles and button mashing interspersed with battles and poorly acted cut-scenes, basically.

The grind so many hate is a logical outgrowth of all of this. An abstract game can afford to depict myriad interactions-- gambling, negotiation, seduction, troubleshooting, hacking, pickpocketing, surgery, etc. An actualized game tends to attract an audience that demands all these things be spelled out, with the result that everything but traditional interactions (mainly combat) simply have to be cut.

What? No. Not at all. What you get is to do what before you just pretended to be doing. That's a pure win for me.

Complexity isn't always a good thing. And dice roll mechanics, albeit complex if you want to make them complex, are as shallow as there can be.

I'll stick my neck out and disagree -- for me, there's almost nothing more insufferable in modern games than the lock-picking mini-game. I find it tedious, and unfulfilling. I'd much rather have some kind of lock-picking stat and just be done with it. And why are we picking a lock that looks like Its barely holding together through some miracle chemistry of rust and cockroach feces, anyhow? In real life you'd be loath to touch the thing for fear of tetanus or worse, and just smash the thing apart with the but of your rifle. But I'm probably biased, honestly I don't really like CRPGs to begin with; the massive number of stats, piles of loot, and the like just seem like too much tedium to me. jRPGs are more my speed.

On the other hand, for myself, at least (and I do like computer RPGs), die-rolling to determine whether a lock is picked is pretty unfulfilling too. I end up either wasting time repeatedly trying to get the random number generator to give me useful results (whether by save-scumming or simply making multiple attempts), or giving up on it. To some degree this can be mitigated by casting the die at the start of the level (thus reducing the effectiveness, and thus temptation, of save-scumming)--as long as there are other ways to open the locks--otherwise I'm just left with locks that I can never open just because the dice say so.

Having some sort of interactivity involves me in the process, makes it my skill, rather than die-rolls, that determine the outcome. Character skill can still have an effect (perhaps by altering the difficulty of the minigame, or even just determining which locks I can attempt to pick).

That interactivity needn't be a traditional mechanic (such as the usual sort of lock-picking minigame); if the traditional mechanic isn't working, then it might be worth looking for a new one.

Regarding lock-picking, I found the lock-picking in the first three Thief games to work (I haven't yet played the new game), albeit that those weren't RPGs: those were reasonably simple, scaled fairly well, an worked with the rest of the gameplay by delaying the player, calling focus away from guards, looking suspicious, and producing noise, thus making lock-picking (under good conditions) tense and risky, calling for careful judgement.

Again, I do recognise the loss of breadth in potential actions in removing die-rolling, and I'm not saying that no game should ever use dice-mechanics; I just think that less-general mechanics have their advantages too.

I do also like Servant's idea of a "para-physics"-based game; I actually tried to make something similar myself once, but in that case it didn't work out. A good implementation might be very interesting.

Having some sort of interactivity involves me in the process, makes it my skill, rather than die-rolls, that determine the outcome. Character skill can still have an effect (perhaps by altering the difficulty of the minigame, or even just determining which locks I can attempt to pick).

I wouldn't like die-rolls either, for the reasons you put out there. I'd personally just have it be that a level-2 lock-picker can simply pick locks up to level-2. I don't generally like time-based mechanics in jRPGs, but in a game where stealth is an element, locks of a level lower than the player's skill could come more quickly/stealthfully than locks nearer their skill level -- perhaps they could attempt to pick a lock at a higher level, but it would take additional time, and risk breaking their tool.