You seem to try really hard

A GM can still create encounters with lower level monsters to show the progression of the party, or more dangerous encounters with higher level to create danger. And what I meant is just that the basics of character creation, leveling, combat, using dice rolls to make saves or check skills, that kinda thing.

Allow me to point it out.

You don't care why someone may like a game, if it's a game that you don't like (even if the reasons you don't like it are valid, like in this case), you do come out as "If I don't like it, noone should like it".

I don't like RTS, but I won't look down on anyone who enjoys them. I will post reasons why I think X is right, I will accept reasons someone else thinks Y is right, and I will try to convince them to change their mind. But saying that because you think Y is right, you are wrong, and you don't know what you are talking about does usually lead to this kind of arguments.

I'm surprised they bothered putting actual discs in the box and not just a list of steam codes with a link to download the free games off their site.

I guess the price is fine considering they released Skyrim Legendary edition for $60 recently. It's a pass for me though as I picked up Skyrim 360 for $15 and have all the others on PC already.

So a proper level scaling, unlike the usual lazy ones implemented in computer games. Have had this discussion before with jamotide, I can give a link to what I consider proper level scaling.

Like in Paranoia 5th Edition? Where the basic rule is "If the GM says it happens like this, that is how it happens"? Or like how D&D 2nd edition dealt with parries (it didn't, an extra supplement had those)? Or how Numenera deals with attempts, anyone can do anything even if they don't have a skill for it. It will just be harder to succeed.

There are quite a lot of P&P systems, and not all of those have rigid rulesets on whether something is possible or not. Quite a few have luck based mechanics (dice), a few have a bit more tactic to it (Dragonlance had a card based system as I recall, you had to know which card to play when), and a very few depend only on roleplaying, with the GM saying if the attempt succeeds or not.

Not just the horse and cart but everything in it; the cart alone could carry 750kg and a 100 Strength character could carry another 150kg (with any boosts from spells or potions stacking on top of that) so it was possible to soar effortlessly over the rooftops of the Iliac Bay while carrying almost a tonne of goods. :)

Morrowind lacked the cart but introduced the ability to boost the Acrobatics skill for those that would rather leap tall buildings in a single bound like Golden Age Superman.

If Oblivion was a standalone game it might be okay, kinda like how one can ignore Battlefield or CoD rehashes. But it was a terrible rape of a great established RPG series for no reason other than selling the game to a console audience, without any retaining any faithfulness to it's predecessors or showing any respect for fans of the previous TES games. You might notice that Bethsoft did this to Fallout too. Older fans of Arena/Daggerfall or older fans of Fallout 1/2 were not the target audience of Oblivion/Skyrim or Fallout 3, they simply used the established brand and lore to sell to console/mainstream gamers without any respect to the fans who put them in the position they were in.

Someone liking Oblivion/Skyrim or F3 are being indirectly disrespectful to the superior predecessors.

I used to think that until I came to the realisation that they will never be able to come close to that goal.

You need a real person running the show in order to get that experience. If your GM was so inclined he could have you facing the depths of hell one minute and playing rainbow hopscotch with carebears the next, the only limitations are imagination and experience.

Every line of code, every text box, every model, every voice acted line, every texture is a chain which binds the imagination available in tabletop RPG's. Even with someone personally GMing a CRPG game, they'll still be limited compared to a tabletop game.

With this in mind I feel CRPGs are much better off trying to be their own things instead of attempting to emulate something they can never be.

I do not have a probably with some scaling in RPGs, but only in small doses. But they all have rules governing the system. When your character tries to perform an action, the rules of the game govern if they are successful or not. And a rule means a restriction. Without a GM to regulate these things, computer RPGs can't afford to be as lax as some tabletop systems are, they need to have more set rules.

The design philosophy behind Skyrim (or Bethsoft in general) goes against simulating anything based in rules, because they feel rules frustrate their player. Same reason Skyrim effectively got rid of the level cap with the Legendary skills thing, and why it got rid of all the attribute and class restrictions and checks in Daggerfall, they want the audience to be ego-patted and told they are the invincible Dragonborn and can do anything, go anywhere, fight anything, and aren't restricted.

I'd actually like to point that that I think this has something to do with American/Western culture of nowadays, especially Western education systems downplaying "failure" in academic systems and encouraging idealistic views such as "you can be anything".

Shame. I was considering buying it until they said that.

But the cRPGs do always have more rigid ruleset than a tabletop, but you may not know said ruleset. A computer does require a check to see if an action succeeds or not, but that check may be a 3D geometry instead of a skill check (weapon's model colliding with enemy hit box instead of weapon skill + modifier checked against enemy defense). In the above case, you do expect that swinging the weapon towards the enemy should make it possible for you to wound him, but you are not sure how easy it will be to wound him, nor how grave the wound may be. How is that different from the first attempt to hit an enemy during a tabletop session?

I can respect the wish to know everything about the ruleset of the game you play, but I can also respect not wanting to mess with number crunching. Both systems can work and both systems can give pleasure to the player, so I don't want to dismiss either system. As for the question of whether one of the two is better than the other, that is a personal preference.

Is it possible to make an RPG without the number crunching?

Technically yes, but you kind of need the number crunching and randomness (IMO) to make it interesting.

An action RPG sure. For traditional JRPGs and WRPGs you generally have some kind of stats. Even Final Fantasy 1 as old as it is had min/maxing.

JMich the difference is between player and character skill. 3D geometry/being able to quickly aim the reticule to shoot or hit an enemy or other "twitch" mechanics has nothing to do with the rules of a tabletop RPG, that's just the rules of any computer program.