Are CRPGs really role-playing games?

[Raven Crowking]

First, the only way to change the way the dice, rules and game designers control your character is to change the rules of the game.

Please name the edition of D&D, for example, which didn't say exactly the opposite of the above. Every edition has Rule 0, or equivilent, as does every rpg that I know of.

 

[Ourph]

Please name the edition of D&D, for example, which didn't say exactly the opposite of the above. Every edition has Rule 0, or equivilent, as does every rpg that I know of.

Rule 0 allows the DM to change the rules. How does that contradict what I said? :\

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is obvious pedantry, unworthy of your communication skills RC.

ad hominem attack.

We're talking about limitations on the player's control.

In a role-playing game, the limitations on the player's control are determined by the participants. They are not determined by the dice, save as the participants choose to use the dice, nor are they determined by the rules, save as the participants choose to use the rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, are applications such as Maptool, Fantasy Grounds and OpenRPG then not RPGs either, since they try to, as you put it, simulate the experience of table-top D&D?

Strawman.

Villians & Vigilantes simulated D&D pretty directly as "D&D in a superhero environment", and it was a role-playing game. Being a simulation of another game is not enough, by itself, to prevent a thing from being an rpg.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In a role-playing game, the limitations on the player's control are determined by the participants. They are not determined by the dice, save as the participants choose to use the dice, nor are they determined by the rules, save as the participants choose to use the rules.

It reads to me like you're using your definition to prove your definition here.

 

[Nate Jones]

I think you are going a little bit overboard with these logical fallacies, but...

So if a "simulation" of a role-playing game can be itself a role-playing game, what relevance does labeling CRPGs have on whether they are role-playing games?

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a poor definition for a simulation (and not just because you use the word "simulate" to define "simulation").

Please explain why.

Dictionary.com: "The representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed for the purpose."

Me: "A simulation is any thing X that simulates another thing Y, especially in the case where the medium used in X and Y differ."

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).

Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim.

 

[Nate Jones]

It reads to me like you're using your definition to prove your definition here.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's a logical fallacy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rule 0 allows the DM to change the rules. How does that contradict what I said? :\

In a role-playing game, it is integral to the game itself that the game participants can choose to ignore/alter rules during play. In a role-playing game, all rules are guidelines, and the choices of the participants are limited only by the participants themselves.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In a role-playing game, it is integral to the game itself that the game participants can choose to ignore/alter rules during play.

No it isn't. Again, you're using your definition of the term roleplaying game here without backing up your argument with anything but your own use of the term roleplaying game. We've already established that I don't hold that to be an important aspect of a roleplaying game, so why should your argument here hold any validity for anyone that disagrees with you?

My definition allows for two people to pick up two Chainmail miniatures, one guy saying "Hey, this is me, I'll be Bob" another saying "This is me, I'll be Mike" and having a fight using the Chainmail rules to adjudicate their battle.