Computers beat up my role player

[ThirdWizard]

Excepting, of course, that that meaning of rpg goes back to the roots of the term, was not made up by WayneLigon, and is included or implied in many early rpgs. And, of course, that the person who was most involved in coining the term on this thread stated that it meant what WayneLigon suggests in meant, and that the meaning he uses for it precludes computer games at this time due to the restrictions they impose.

I would then argue that the term "roleplaying game" goes back further than the person who popularized the term and is much more general than the specific use of it that encompasses the D&D game. I would go on to say that the phrase as was used to describe D&D then was expanded upon to include all sorts of games, one of which is the popular video game genre.

You're basically saying that if Alexander Graham Bell had included in his definition of the telephone "uses a wire to transmit" that anything that deviates from this definition is not, in fact, a phone and is merely a simulation of a phone. Thus a cellular phone is not a sub-category of "telephone" but is a completely different thing.

This is why we've coined terms like P&P and Tabletop RPG to distinguish those games from CRPGs, TRPGs, MMORPGs, etc. They aren't the same, yet they belong to the super-category of "Role-playing Game."

 

[Scribble]

wait... but what about when your girlfriend/wife buys, that new skimpy French maid costume she found in Fredericks of Hollywood, and then surprises you later that night???

Is THAT roleplaying?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd say that's precisely what wrongbadfunism is. The claim that one style of roleplaying is objectively better than another.

Perhaps, but there's a difference between claiming one objectively better, and claiming that two things are objectively different. It is quite possible that WayneLigon is doing both, but the quote being responded to that I responded does not seem to me to be an example thereof.

It is not an elitist position when one actually has a position of superiority over others, instead of a pecieved one; in this case, the fact that the term RPG when applied to computer games is being used incorrectly.​

In this quote, WayneLigon seems to me to be referring to a position of superiority re: argument (i.e., a belief that his argument is superior), rather than his gaming.

Therefore, I conclude that what I responded to was an attempt to conflate WayneLigon's argument with his value judgement. While WayneLigon's value judgement is certainly subjective, that doesn't mean his argument is wrong.

Which is why the "wrongbadfun argument" didn't apply (IMHO).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would then argue that the term "roleplaying game" goes back further than the person who popularized the term and is much more general than the specific use of it that encompasses the D&D game.

Example the usage of the term from a pre-D&D source, please.

 

[Raven Crowking]

wait... but what about when your girlfriend/wife buys, that new skimpy French maid costume she found in Fredericks of Hollywood, and then surprises you later that night???

Is THAT roleplaying?

The very best kind!

(So long as you are allowed to react/act spontaneously!)

 

[Cameron]

Perhaps, but there's a difference between claiming one objectively better, and claiming that two things are objectively different. It is quite possible that WayneLigon is doing both, but the quote being responded to that I responded does not seem to me to be an example thereof.

It is not an elitist position when one actually has a position of superiority over others, instead of a pecieved one; in this case, the fact that the term RPG when applied to computer games is being used incorrectly.​

In this quote, WayneLigon seems to me to be referring to a position of superiority re: argument (i.e., a belief that his argument is superior), rather than his gaming.

Therefore, I conclude that what I responded to was an attempt to conflate WayneLigon's argument with his value judgement. While WayneLigon's value judgement is certainly subjective, that doesn't mean his argument is wrong.

Which is why the "wrongbadfun argument" didn't apply (IMHO).

RC

A superior position according to whom? WayneLigon? Is another's opinion that CRPGs are superior to traditional PnP RPG an automatically flawed argument because it is a "fact" that they are not?

 

[Raven Crowking]

A superior position according to whom?

Well, it seems clear that WayneLigon thinks his position is a superior one. Whether or not it is, of course, is subject to debate, but I don't think he is wrong in saying (paraphrasing here) that a person with a superior argument that believes his argument to be superior is an elitist. It therefore follows that a person who believes that his argument is superior is not an elitist for holding that belief.....although he may be wrong.

Of course, I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the simply line of reasoning that says that if computer games are extended to be role-playing games, why isn't Monopoly or Chess? Nor has the Madden Football analogy been adequately addressed. We have seen a lot of people say that certain computer games are rpgs because of how they are similar to role-playing games, and acknowledge that they fail to fully capture the games they are similar to, and yet fail to make the leap that they are therefore simulations of role-playing games.

These things together, to my mind, suggests a definition that fails to define, and is therefore a weaker position. YMMV, and probably does.

Is another's opinion that CRPGs are superior to traditional PnP RPG an automatically flawed argument because it is a "fact" that they are not?

They are certainly superior in some ways. I've yet to see a DM crunch numbers as fast as a computer can, for example. As far as which is more fun, I am inclined toward rpgs over computer games, but I know people whose inclinations are exactly the opposite.


RC


BTW, what do you think "Elitists versus Inclusionists - Do tomatoes play RPGs?" is supposed to mean? An off-handed ad hominem attack in the (new) thread title itself?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Ad homimen attack.

More accuratly, an admitedly and probably regrettable flame that preceds my argument. It is not ad hominem if it is not the argument itself.

While you are correct about the nature of linguistic drift, you seem to fail to realize that changing definitions cannot be conflated. Thus, if a whale was once considered a fish, and a trout is now considered a fish, that does not mean that the term "fish" as applied to a trout now necessarily applies to a whale. Nor does it mean that, if we went back in a time machine, that a whale would actually be a fish under the modern sense of the word.

Err... You are going to be clearer onwhat the heck you are meaning here... I don't see either the logic, or how it applies to my argument, at all... Let me try to dissect the analogy... Fish=RPG... Whale=computer RPG... Trout=pen and paper RPG, correct?

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the whales (computer RPGs) are perfectly equivalent to pen and paper RPGs because they share the same name. That is an absurd argument. I siad they were "similar" earlier, but I never once said they were the same, because they are not. They are two very different things, each of which is becoming more different each year, and I never claimed similarity.

This might be a case of you misinterpreting the goal of my argument. I will need to elaborate my argument below.

Similarly, the term "rpg" once had a more specific meaning that did not encompase what are now called "computer rpgs". Simply because an industrial segment coopts a term doesn't mean that the term is justified, or that use of the term is acceptable to all people.

To be blunt, you are far too late to be condemning the "unacceptability" of this term now. It is already widespread, and might already be wider spread than the use of RPG for D&D type games. One of the most important classic videogame RPGs, Dragon Quest, was first released in May of 1986, and has thus been considered an RPG for 21 years. There are much older games for the PC. Whole generations have grown up calling that game an RPG. Any battle to avoid the usage of that name has already been lost.

I, for one, have long ago agreed that, if you alter the original meaning of the term to include computer games, then by necessity computer games are rpgs under the altered meaning of the term. That doesn't make them rpgs under the original meaning, however.

Again, you misunderstand my argument (or perhaps are just restating your own after quoting me?). I never once said that the "definition for RPG has expanded to include". I said that, because of historical similarity, a new definition for RPG has been created. It is the same thing as a new definition for "plant" being created to describe a type of factory. It seems I will need to elaborate my argument further...

Very well then, let us look at this chronologically. Somewhere more than 20 years ago, various people started making games that, to varying degrees, played a bit like pen and paper RPGs (games like Ultima, the first Pool of Radiance game set in the Realms, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy). They were a unique genre, similar to but very different from adventure games like the Zork or King's Quest series. For lack of any other name to call this genre, the name RPG was applied to these games by fans and other people who needed to make the distinction, and the name sticks.

Over the next 20 years, more games like those early videogames are made. People called Final Fantasy an RPG, so of course, fans knew that Final Fantasy 3 must also be an RPG. Dragon Quest was an RPG, so Dragon Quest 4, which was very simiar in stlye except more complex, must also be an RPG. As years passed and these game crossed into their 5th and 6th iterations, all kinds of games of the same style emerged (Breath of Fire, Suikoden, etc), all evolving from the base set of games that were called RPGs. It was a distinct progression, which occured completely independant of any influence from D&D or the like.

So now, there are two forms of RPG. One is the pen and paper RPG, which is a tabletop game that evolved from the original Dungeons and Dragons through new interpretations like GURPS or HERO and new editions. The other is the RPG genre of videogames, which evolved independantly and became something totally new and distinct from pen and paper RPGs.

Thus, the two were historically related, but they are currently unrelated. Pen and paper RPGs and electronic RPGs are not the same thing, and should not be considered the same thing. But, the name RPG equally applies to both, since the name was applied to both since the beginning of their existence. Two seperate definitions of the same word.

As such, the whole premise of this thread, appraising whether or not electronic RPGs deserve the name RPG based on how they emulate the experience of playing D&D, is completely absurd. It is the same thing as appraising the value of Chess or Go upon its ability to emulate real tactical warfare. Chess and Go arn't trying to emulate tactical warfare, they are trying to be fun and interesting games. Similarly, electronic RPGs are not trying to simulate D&D, or even be anything remotely like D&D, they are emulating older iterations of the electronic RPG genre, and are trying to be fun on their own terms.

Game makers like Wizards of the Coast and Malhavoc Press use the term RPG because fans of pen and paper RPGs recognize the term and understand the kind of game it implies, based on their experiences with other games called RPGs. Similarly, videogame companies like Square-Enix or Nippon Ichi use the term RPG because fans of games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest will recognize the usage, and will guy their games based on the emrits of those games. Two different groups, using different definitions of the same word.

I guess, to answer the original title of this thread: yes, computer RPGs should indeed be called RPGs, but no, they are not pen and paper RPGs, and they don't want to be.

EDIT: By the new title, if this is about Elitism vs. Inclusion, and I am arguing for neither, than am I just in the wrong thread and should have been smarted than to stick my head into a hornets nest that was raging before I got here?

 

[Scribble]

The very best kind!

(So long as you are allowed to react/act spontaneously!)

There has to be a joke in here about NPCs... but I don't think I'll go there...

 

[Cameron]

Well, it seems clear that WayneLigon thinks his position is a superior one. Whether or not it is, of course, is subject to debate, but I don't think he is wrong in saying (paraphrasing here) that a person with a superior argument that believes his argument to be superior is an elitist. It therefore follows that a person who believes that his argument is superior is not an elitist for holding that belief.....although he may be wrong.

Of course, I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the simply line of reasoning that says that if computer games are extended to be role-playing games, why isn't Monopoly or Chess? Nor has the Madden Football analogy been adequately addressed. We have seen a lot of people say that certain computer games are rpgs because of how they are similar to role-playing games, and acknowledge that they fail to fully capture the games they are similar to, and yet fail to make the leap that they are therefore simulations of role-playing games.

These things together, to my mind, suggests a definition that fails to define, and is therefore a weaker position. YMMV, and probably does.



They are certainly superior in some ways. I've yet to see a DM crunch numbers as fast as a computer can, for example. As far as which is more fun, I am inclined toward rpgs over computer games, but I know people whose inclinations are exactly the opposite.


RC


BTW, what do you think "Elitists versus Inclusionists - Do tomatoes play RPGs?" is supposed to mean? An off-handed ad hominem attack in the (new) thread title itself?

By advocating that he is superior, WayneLigon has, in effect, stated that his opinions should matter more than anyone elses. This means that his definition is the "right" one, and that any deviations from that is by default "wrong". Since he is also advocating that point of view, it also is implicitly implied that his is the "right" fun and everyone else are "wrong". That is where the whole wrongbadfun thing comes in.

Anytime you play a role, even at work or at school/university, you are roleplaying. What the role is is irrelevant. In effect, we are all actors on a stage that just so happens to encompass the entire universe. In this I do agree with Shakespeare. So yes, down to the fundamental definition of role playing, playing chess and Monopoly can be considered roleplaying (and if you have seen one of my friends play both games, you'd *definitely* consider it role playing, given the trash-talking irritating persona he adopts while playing those games).

Btw, what is YMMV? Seen it, but don't know what it means.

I don't know about the thread title. It seems a bit odd, a failed referrence to "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?", the book that was the precursor to Bladerunner, by the looks of it.