Computers beat up my role player

[WayneLigon]

...that someone running a module in a manner that he disapproves of is actually not playing an RPG at all. On an RPG forum, that's an attack. A passive-aggressive one that can be disguised with handwaving and "I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion" excuses, but an attack nonetheless.

I think you might be misconstruing what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to be passive aggressive, I'm trying to be both neutral and polite. I might well have wandered into that territory by accident, though. Also, sorry if you think it's an attack - if I were in the mood for attacks, I'd simply ask you to start a thread at Circvs Maximvs and be done with it.

But you'd be correct; if you're not getting into your character and doing some degree of role assumption or immersion or whatever you want to call it; if you're not empathizing with the guy you've created and done at least a little work to bring him to life like one would a character in a novel you were writing, then no, you're not role-playing. At best, you're playing a somewhat more complex-than-normal boardgame. You're gaming, not role-playing.

If you want to consider that an attack upon you and your livelihood, then feel free to do so.

Is it bad to do that? Not really, he said in an offhanded manner. I've done it when I was just in the mood to game with friends and not take on the added work that really getting into character and setting a mood and all the rest. It's not bad, but it's also not as good as doing the work of role-playing, either. I don't condemn people that enjoy playing like that on a regular basis, but I will say they could do better. I don't dislike them: I kinda pity them.

From what I've seen over the years, it's very, very likely they just haven't been exposed to good GMing, or been in a game where the players worked at it. Much like a person that has never been exposed to real food made by a real chef, but only eaten stuff from fast food and chain restaurants, they don't know what they're missing.

[list of things]
I don't know what the magic number there is -- 3? 4? 5? -- but I do know that taking just one or two elements and declaring them the sole defining point(s) of whether something is an RPG is an attempt to declare one's personal preferences reality. I might not like Oblivion, but I can accept it as an RPG.

Actually, most of those have nothing to do with role-playing; they have a lot to do with the richness of the game as a game and are very important; they can take a humdrum shoot-em-up and instill a great deal of enjoyment in it. When I was playing it, I got a disturbing amount of enjoyment out of resource management in WoW These points are commonly used to point to it being a 'RPG' when discussing computer games, but

.. this is the crux of my arguement ...

the computer gaming industry misses the point and uses the term RPG incorrectly.

If you're missing the critical and definative ability to construct a personality and then act upon and as that personality, then you have not created a roleplaying game.

Railroading is only a part of the problem:

One can attempt roleplaying in a CRPG but you quickly run up against the limitations of the medium, even in one where you can talk 'in character' to other PC's controlled by real people.

If I'm playing a rogue and I'm given a mission to kill the young prince, like as not I have no choice but to kill the young prince to go further into the game. What if the personality of the thief I'm playing wouldn't kill a child no matter what? Well, I'm kinda screwed then. Even in a well-written game that has multiple pathways through it, there's very likely not going to be a pathway that would match what my PC would do. Sooner than later, I'm going to hit a choice that my PC in a tabletop game would refuse to do. In that case, I have to either (1) just abandon trying to roleplay at all, or (2) modify my vision.

There is nothing at all wrong with modifying your vision! We have to do it all the time in any RPG, or otherwise you're a stick-in-the-ass prima dona stereotype Method actor. But... Enough modifications build up and we're right back to (1) again.

 

[Doug McCrae]

How about a programmer playing a crpg he's written himself. When he wants to do something new he changes the code, adding the ability to swing on a rope or the necessity to sleep. Is he playing a roleplaying game?

 

[Doug McCrae]

One thing I've noticed about the majority of crpgs I've played is that they are very 'D&Dy' - they have levels, classes and hit points, though never Vancian magic. WoW in particular shows its influence with gnolls and owlbears. Even a possible nod to the pig-nosed orcs of earlier editions. Maybe they're D&D but not roleplaying games. After all, as rpgs go, D&D has mostly put the emphasis on game rather than roleplaying.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you're missing the critical and definative ability to construct a personality and then act upon and as that personality, then you have not created a roleplaying game.

Care to address Gygax's argument, then?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Stating that X is not Y is not a statement related to the value of either X or Y.

It is if Y is something generally valued. Such as roleplaying games are on a board devoted to them.

It's like saying action movies aren't really films or fantasy books aren't novels. Books and films are things people care about, rightly or wrongly. They're valued. Otoh saying a whale isn't a fish won't have many people leaping to the whale's defence.

 

[TwinBahamut]

This whole thread is arguing a moot point. Regardless of whether or not some people think computer or video games are "really RPGs", the term is incredibly pervasive among computer and video game players. One simply can not have a discussion of videogame genres without the term coming up. Even various sub-genres, such as MMORPG or tactical RPG (also called strategy RPG or simulation RPG), have widely used and quite specific names. People use these terms in discussions, they use them in marketing, they are used by videogame news websites and magazines... I mean, 15 years ago, when I was in elementary school, I only knew the term RPG referred to videogames, and didn't know that tabletop RPGs even existed.

The only anyone would even bother trying to make the distinction at this point is if they wanted to position tabletop RPGs as superior to computer RPGs, in some elitist gesture. Trying to undermine an established and well-understood use of the term is inherently going to rub fans of videogames the wrong way.

Regardless, here are some good reasons why videogame RPGs share the term "RPG" with pen and paper games:

1) Historical similarity
Early RPGs were attempting to emulate the genre that D&D fills. Stories of adventure in fantastic lands, with a group of adventurers scouring dungeons and slaying dragons. I don't think it is a coincidence that the main foes of the first Dragon Quest were dragons, or that the "default" party of the first Final Fantasy was a fighter, thief, healer, and wizard, who go on to fight evil elemental monsters and mind-flayers. Many early computer RPGs were even set in the Forgotten Realms.

Computer RPGs have evolved in many distinct ways unique to the medium since those times, but the roots of the genre are undoubtably found in pen and parer RPGs.

2)Mechanical similarity
Because of the genre emulation I mentioned above, it lead to many mechanical similarities. Just like D&D, computer RPGs have multiple characters with varying stats and party roles. Combat is resolved through comparisons between character and enemy stats, based on tactical choices made by the player. Like different tabletop RPGs, progression is either formless (Romancing Saga or HERO Champions) or built on classes and levels (Final Fantasy 3-6 or D&D). Many videogame RPGs use the ideas of grid movement and ordering actions absed on "initiative" stats, just like D&D.

These mechanical similarities make computer RPGs far more similar to tabletop RPGs than to any other form of game, electronic or otherwise. It is the fact that they resemble D&D that is used to differentiate them from other videogame genres, like first person shooters or racing games.

Simply put, someone who has played many computer RPGs would probably think that D&D is not a very different game, when it comes to gameplay mechanics. I certainly thought it was similar.

Also, when countering this argument, I ask that people keep in mind that gameplay mechanics are the one thing seperating "role-playing games" from being "improvisational acting".

3)Story similarities
Finally, the last main reason is that videogame RPGs tell a story. Especially a decade or so ago (before Metal Gear Solid, at least), RPGs were the only type of videogame where story, character, and character development mattered at all. Many games put story ahead of gameplay, and having an RPG without a developed story was unthinkable. This is probably the most distinct similarity to D&D, which is distinctly built upon telling a story. Even though the methods of telling a story are very different between electronic games and living DMs, the interest in having a story is the same, and for many years was one of the most visible points of similarity between the two.


Overall, I think there are more similarities than differences between videogame RPGs and pen and paper RPGs, at least when compared to any other form of entertainment. I suppose some may argue that it is the "most important thing" that is different (at which point I suppose you will just ignore me), but you can't argue that the name was given to videogame RPGs for arbitrary and senseless reasons.

 

[RFisher]

This is more an artifact of scientific definitions being different from the ones in common usage than of people being incorrect.

Is a whale a fish? It used to be, but the scientific definition of fish changed it.

In the particular case of fruit, though, I think the scientific meaning (the ripened ovary of a seed plant and its contents) is really closer to the pre-scientific meaning (a product of plant growth) than the modern common usage (a succulent plant part used chiefly in a dessert or sweet course).

Although, a difference with the tomato analogy is that fruits are vegetables, so it's not wrong to call a tomato a vegetable. It's merely wrong to say it isn't a fruit. (With it being very hard for me not to put wrong in scare quotes here.)

There is a false assumption in this question. It assumes that for CRPG'S to qualify as RPG's, they must be exactly the same as TRPG's.

(>_<) No, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's doesn't! I asked right there that we drop the definition argument for that question. I do not care about whether CRPGs qualify as RPGs. (I've made up my own mind about that, and--while I probably could be convinced otherwise--I'm just not interested in that aspect of this discussion.) I've been trying to focus more on the topic of what the differences are rather than whether the differences make them "true RPGs" or not.

But then, I guess it doesn't help that--like above--I can't stay totally out of the periphery of the definition discussion. (u_u)

So, I give up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One thing I've noticed about the majority of crpgs I've played is that they are very 'D&Dy' - they have levels, classes and hit points, though never Vancian magic. WoW in particular shows its influence with gnolls and owlbears. Even a possible nod to the pig-nosed orcs of earlier editions. Maybe they're D&D but not roleplaying games. After all, as rpgs go, D&D has mostly put the emphasis on game rather than roleplaying.

Yes, but we must remember...no matter how much the computer game simulated D&D it isn't simulating a role-playing game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is if Y is something generally valued. Such as roleplaying games are on a board devoted to them.

Only if X is something not generally valued. In which case noting the difference is still not a value judgement; that judgement has occurred prior to noting the distinction.

I am told that cheesecake is a pie, not a cake. I can accept that. I like both pie and cake. If I am told that on a board dedicated to pies or cakes, it makes no difference.

It is nothing like saying action movies aren't really films or fantasy books aren't novels, although even in these cases one can debate the definition of "film" or "novel" and them make a determination whether or not the assertation is true.

EDIT: As a side note, if the board is devoted to rpgs, and crpgs are rpgs (as you assert), and that definition is widely agreed upon (as others assert), then X is not Y on this board could hardly be as dismissive as you claim.....more like saying cheesecake is a pie on a board dedicated to pies and cakes.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only anyone would even bother trying to make the distinction at this point is if they wanted to position tabletop RPGs as superior to computer RPGs, in some elitist gesture.

Truly?

You leaped into my mind and plucked that out, did you?

You do make a good case about why cRPGs should be thought to simulate RPGs, though.

RC