Players choose what their PCs do . . .

FrogReaver · Jul 9, 2019

Aldarc said:
Apart from numerous RPGs that are exceptions to this, which have been mentioned previously in this thread. So we return to "ambiguous."

Hmmm... I just created a game where no roleplaying is required. I'm going to label it as an RPG. I guess that means that RPG's don't require roleplaying afterall since now we can cite one where Roleplaying is not required

The point is that the act of a person or company defining something as a roleplaying game has nothing to do with whether or not it is one, nor whether the mechanics it adopts are mechanics conducive to roleplaying or whether those mechanics would best be classified some other that.

In short - saying there's a roleplaying game where X is done is insufficient to show that X is a roleplaying mechanic or that the game in question is a roleplaying game..

Aldarc · Jul 9, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
Well, yeah, that would be a great example of when that does happen. However, citing Pendragon and Monsterhearts isn't exactly the same as saying the thing is common.

I believe that other prior examples had already been offered where these things are not strictly the purview of the player, including some past discussion of Fate, for example.

Most RPGs don't have that inclination to representing affairs of the heart though, which is why the wink example seems so nonstandard or jarring to some people. If the example had been a noble's sneer inciting hatred, a laughing baby inciting happiness, or even a well turned calf inciting lust, I don't think it would have occasioned nearly so much commentary in this thread. Romance and love have a weird place in TTRPGs.

I'm not sure if it's a case of "most don't" or if it's just that the "elephant in the room doesn't." I also think that the problem with an argument of "most don't" is that it tries to downplay the frequency of those games that do. Does the the frequency need to be "most games" for it to challenge the idea that games (should) operate in particular ways regarding how emotional states can be induced in player characters?

FrogReaver said:
Hmmm... I just created a game where no roleplaying is required. I'm going to label it as an RPG. I guess that means that RPG's don't require roleplaying afterall since now we can cite one where Roleplaying is not required

The point is that the act of a person or company defining something as a roleplaying game has nothing to do with whether or not it is one, nor whether the mechanics it adopts are mechanics conducive to roleplaying or whether those mechanics would best be classified some other that.

In short - saying there's a roleplaying game where X is done is insufficient to show that X is a roleplaying mechanic or that the game in question is a roleplaying game..

So basically you made D&D?

Joking aside, I would appreciate more sincerety than what your post represents. You yourself early on acknowledged in this thread that the games that were offered as counter-examples were roleplaying games. So it's a little too late for you to be glib about this now.

FrogReaver · Jul 9, 2019

Aldarc said:
I believe that other prior examples had already been offered where these things are not strictly the purview of the player, including some past discussion of Fate, for example.

I'm not sure if it's a case of "most don't" or if it's just that the "elephant in the room doesn't." I also think that the problem with an argument of "most don't" is that it tries to downplay the frequency of those games that do. Does the the frequency need to be "most games" for it to challenge the idea that games (should) operate in particular ways regarding how emotional states can be induced in player characters?

So basically you made D&D?

You are definitely the first I've met that doesn't call D&D a roleplaying game...

FrogReaver · Jul 9, 2019

Aldarc said:
Joking aside, I would appreciate more sincerety than what your post represents. You yourself early on acknowledged in this thread that the games that were offered as counter-examples were roleplaying games. So it's a little too late for you to be glib about this now.

You slid this comment in right as I replied and I didn't even notice it was there.

I think that most examples provided here are roleplaying games (I'm not familiar enough with all to know). But That's not mutually exclusive with believing that a company calling a game a roleplaying game makes it so.

Nor does it mean that any given mechanic in such games is a roleplaying mechanic. It may very well be that the mechanic in question hinders roleplaying instead of helping it along.

Aldarc · Jul 9, 2019

FrogReaver said:
You are definitely the first I've met that doesn't call D&D a roleplaying game...

Hardly. (1) Matt Colville has referred to as a dressed-up tactical skirmish war-game. (2) John Wick (7th Sea, LotFR) has controversially said that D&D is not a roleplaying game. (3)@Morrus; (without taking sides) has discussed elsewhere the debates of the '90s between "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" which featured D&D as a common point of debate about its place as a roleplaying game. So no, I'm not the first who (joked) about D&D not being a game that potentially fits what you had said.

FrogReaver said:
I think that most examples provided here are roleplaying games (I'm not familiar enough with all to know). But That's not mutually exclusive with believing that a company calling a game a roleplaying game makes it so.

Nor does it mean that any given mechanic in such games is a roleplaying mechanic. It may very well be that the mechanic in question hinders roleplaying instead of helping it along.

And most of those examples, if not, all counter the proposition that I was responding to about roleplaying games. That's all.

Fenris-77 · Jul 9, 2019

Aldarc said:
I believe that other prior examples had already been offered where these things are not strictly the purview of the player, including some past discussion of Fate, for example.

I'm not sure if it's a case of "most don't" or if it's just that the "elephant in the room doesn't." I also think that the problem with an argument of "most don't" is that it tries to downplay the frequency of those games that do. Does the the frequency need to be "most games" for it to challenge the idea that games (should) operate in particular ways regarding how emotional states can be induced in player characters?

I didn't realize that we were having a conversation about 'should'. I thought we were having a conversation about what's common in RPGs, and thus what common experiences might be framing the responses we've seen in this thread. I am no way downplaying the games that do, or fronting my personal preferences, but that doesn't make them common. I'll make a declarative statement, just to be clear - most TTRPGs do not deal with inculcating emotional states for roleplaying purposes in PCs period, especially related to romance, and almost none of them without an associated mechanic or rule. I'm really not just talking about D&D here.

Whether that should be more common in RPGs, and/or the value of it being more common, is not something I was addressing. Personally I like the fact that games in question are becoming more common.

FrogReaver · Jul 9, 2019

Aldarc said:
Hardly. (1) Matt Colville has referred to as a dressed-up tactical skirmish war-game. (2) John Wick (7th Sea, LotFR) has controversially said that D&D is not a roleplaying game. (3)Tony Vargas (without taking sides) has discussed elsewhere the debates of the '90s between "rollplaying vs. roleplaying" which featured D&D as a common point of debate about its place as a roleplaying game. So no, I'm not the first who (joked) about D&D not being a game that potentially fits what you had said.

And most of those examples, if not, all counter the proposition that I was responding to about roleplaying games. That's all.

Ive not met any of them. Nor would I know who any of them are unless you told me

Bobble · Jul 9, 2019

Aldarc said:
Apart from numerous RPGs that are exceptions to this, which have been mentioned previously in this thread. So we return to "ambiguous."

So, HOW is it ambiguous? You have NOT stated how that is so

Ovinomancer · Jul 9, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Not at all too focused on mechanics. Without realizing it mechancis have always been the boundaries wherein I conceptualize a character. If the mechanics simply don't support being the combat god that never loses then I won't conceptualize that I'm the combat god that never loses. If the mechanics don't support me being able to react as I see fit to a maiden's charms then I will not make a character where that factor is important to my conceptualization of him.

On the flip side if a game doesn't have mechanics around having my heart melted by a maiden then I may have already decided to conceive of a character whose heart won't be melted by said maiden.

So really it is all about the mechanics because they define the boundaries for character conceptualization playground that roleplaying in an RPG places us in.

So, you're not too focused on the mechanics, but you determine your characterization by your focus on the mechanics. All good, I guess.

FrogReaver · Jul 9, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
So, you're not too focused on the mechanics, but you determine your characterization by your focus on the mechanics. All good, I guess.

That's a very odd way to categorize what I just said. Mechanics are simply boundaries for the characterization. Beyond that they play no role.