Because an RPG is supposed to be about character stats and proper skill usage, not reflex and twitch skills.

Oblivion is no way to view RPG combat in general, because it's basically unique amongst RPGs (what few there are left) Its more of an evolution of the old gold box D&D games like Ravenloft that were first person, party centered, turn based combat rather than something more traditional like Baldur's gate.

RPG characters have so many spells and abilities, it may never work really well in real time until a computer can read thoughts.

For combat Oblivion is just a slightly faster, more complex version of Condemned minus the kick attack. What would you want transplanted from Condemned?

Wow, that makes me want to play Oblivion some more. That sounds awesome.

I think there are two kind of RPG's nowadays.
1. The old style RPG. With a semi-turn based combat system, where all the hit's and damages are calculated from your stats.
2. The Action RPG. These are getting more and more numerous, and have some kind of real time combat system where stats only account for base damage, but player skill accounts for the critical head (hit on head) and such.

Each has it's fun parts, the only real problem is getting the chosen combat mechanics right.

Just to clear up: Ravenloft and its ilk were not Gold Box games, they were the descendants of the Eye of the Beholder games, which were in a silver box or something. Gold Box was strictly isometric turn based combat (Pool of Radiance, et al).

Yikes. I think I just scared myself with that little bout of geekery.

I think what has happened to gamers, is that we have learned to accept a genre for what it is. If it's an RPG, we have accepted the fact that the action sequences won't be as 'tight' as Soul Calibur (and other fighting games). If it's a fighting game, the game won't have as great of a level of detail, scope and storyline. If an RPG incorporated some of the more robust fighting schemas...they'd have a hit on their hands. Granted, this is easier said than done, but possible. And for those gamers who love RPG's and fighting games...they'd be in gamer heaven.

No! It's a "kick-ass shooter!"

A RPG/Shooter game exist ....Grand Theft Auto, and it's been hugely successful. Now just give us a RPG/Weapon Fighting hybrid please.

My perfect game would be a combination of those listed below (Whats yours?):
Take the fighting of Soul Calibur, the movement of Assasin's Creed (or Splinter Cell), and the storyline of Oblivion.

Something else you need to consider. It takes a full development team upwards of 3 years to make a good fighting game like Soul Calibur. It's not really feasible to develop that and a huge RPG and somehow merge them in any kind of reasonable budget or development timeframe.

Why not take an existing fight engine (no coding needed)...say Soul Calibur, and build an RPG around it? That old fighting code could be ported to a badass RPG, instead of collecting dust. I have a dream!...of a day when the RPG and the Fighting genres will be one!!!

Naivety aside, I'd love to see the blatant ripping off of mechanics from other genres imported into rpgs. A little Gears, a little Thief... etc. I'm of the opinion that the genre is bogged down by it's own history and dogma, though. They're familiar and safe but I don't see the need for stats and skills anymore really.

If you want to play a roleplaying game, then it stands to reason you want to roleplay. So what reason is there for the game to enforce the differences?

I don't see how you could make an RPG where you didn't even tell the game what kind of character you wanted to be at the beginning, but agree that stat/skill progression is unnecessary. Not inherently detrimental, but hurting the genre through it's unnecessary pervasiveness.

Sadly, I don't see that as dogma that will be done away with any time soon. The masses want their carrots on sticks more than they want something epic.

The same way I'd pretend to be dumber than I am in real life.

Yea, it's kind of a break away from traditional rpgs values, huh? There are actually a few pnp rpgs systems out there that don't actually have stats or skills right now, however. I'm not in any way familiar with them, so I really don't have a clue as to how they go about accomplishing the task unfortunately. I guess I could google it, but I'm lazy.

I'm of the opinion that when rpgs were first invented that skills, stats and all that were a way to focus imagination and direct it into a gaming experience. Lacking any sort of 'engine' beyond the creative thought processes of the group, building a set of mathematical rules and limitations was an incredibly important cog that made the whole machine turn. It was and still is a great gaming experience because of it (that of course being predicated on the specific system not being absolute sh*te). It set parameters for what a player character could accomplish, how they could interact with the game world, resolved combat... it carried out all the gruntwork of that vision dancing across your imagination, more or less. If you've ever had a pnp experience you'll know that you never, ever referred to your character as "Groz Gribblesnot the Gobbo", however. It was always "I", you and your character were one. Yet with crpgs now there's a really odd disconnect between the two. You're the player and your avatar is the one playing the role. Some folks like to decry that there's too much input from the person behind the keyboard, that it relies too much on 'player skill' and not enough on 'character skill'. I think that is schism that's really hurting the genre, in terms of development and evolution. As pretty much the entirety of the industry work towards blurring the lines where one begins and the other ends, rpgs seem stuck in a creative rut because they not only fail to bridge that gap but honestly seem to run away from it, shrieking. More classes, more skills, more stats... are they really choices or, for lack of better term, cockblocks to honest roleplay?

It most certainly is.

The question is really how you go about defining that person. What defines you or me? Some would say 'a man is defined by his actions', which is part of what I'm getting at what I think needs to change. If you're looking to shrink that divide between the pc and player why the artificial limitations when given todays engine technologies that allow for a much more 'organic process*'? That's not to say that I believe anything as simplistic as 'opening movie, a boot in the ass and off ya go on your adventure all tabula rasa style' and danjo makes a very good point when he says...

... because as we both know there's also motivations and reasons for why we act the way we do. Successes, failures, opportunity, personality and past experience are also a vital part of that mix. On the other hand, none of those are hard coded into our being either. They're simply reference points we fall back on when making decisions and choices on how we act and if anything, once again, that ability to chose is what defines our 'role' in the world.

I'm sleepy, so I'll type at ya more tomorrow. Please feel free to challenge anything I've said so far. I'd appreciate it

*organic process and a computer... roofles.

Regarding combat in RPG's, I find the horrible AI to be the major turnoff. Like in NWN2, where enemies just run straight into the arms of whoever they spotted first (the player you selected). It makes combat dull, predictable, a chore. And I can't imagine why the progress AI has made in other genres (fps'es mostly) can't be somewhat integrated in an RPG. I'm not expecting Einsteins with guns here, but some variety would be nice!