Are CRPGs really role-playing games?

[Raven Crowking]

Just thought I'd drop by to say I'm really pleased to see this thread still going. Can somebody please drop me a PM or an e-mail when a definitive conclusion is reached. Thanks.

We'll all be dead by then......or downloaded into simulated bodies!

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, why did you add the part about during play? Was that purely to exclude current crpgs? Otherwise what is your basis for doing so?

Because (1) Gary made that distinction earlier in this discussion (on the Thread Formerly Known as Name That Munchkin), and (2) it is necessary to be able to alter rules to allow for a full range of role-playing, so that unexpected/unforeseen actions can be resolved.....an explaination that I believe you will find made by myself and others (far more capably than myself, including Mr. Gygax) earlier in one or the other thread (or both).

It's a merry-go-round in here.

I sometimes think that Internet forums are just one big simulation of Monty Python routines!

 

[Ourph]

Not according to Wittgenstein.

He subsequently argued that the concept "game" could not be contained by any single definition, but that games must be looked at as a series of definitions that share a "family resemblance" to one another.

For all intents an purposes, he's saying "game" is an undefinable term, which isn't very helpful. I think for our purposes in this thread, we should be able to agree that any "game" relevant to this discussion has rules. At the very least, I think we can all agree that a game that comes in the form of a RULEbook (like the D&D PHB for example) contains rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Any single player game is able to do this.

None that I have seen.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

For all intents an purposes, he's saying "game" is an undefinable term, which isn't very helpful. I think for our purposes in this thread, we should be able to agree that any "game" relevant to this discussion has rules. At the very least, I think we can all agree that a game that comes in the form of a RULEbook (like the D&D PHB for example) contains rules.

LOL.

The 1e books specifically and explicitly contain GUIDELINES.

 

[Kem]

None that I have seen.


RC

Yes, you have seen. There is no unmodifiable computer game.

Just because the average person is unable to does not make it so.

There are many people who do not run D&D as a Role-Playing Game, that doesn't make D&D not a role playing game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I don't see this sort of shennanigan as actually contributing anything, so until and unless I see something worth responding to, I hope you will understand why I am no longer responding to your posts.

 

[Ourph]

I would also add that there is a large difference between "only the limitations agreed upon by the participants" and "no limitations at all", your attempt to equate the two notwithstanding.

You must have misread my posts, because I quite agree that those two things aren't equal. In fact, it seems to me that you are the one who has been equating "agreed upon limitations" with "no limitations".

Earlier you weren't claiming RPGs were defined by "only the limitations agreed upon by the participants". If that is your real position then your arguments still fail, but on different grounds. By buying, installing and playing a cRPG a participant in the game is tacitly agreeing to the limitations imposed by the medium. If agreement to limitations is what counts then cRPGs are RPGs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree. But you weren't claiming RPGs were defined by "only the limitations agreed upon by the participants" earlier.

Oh yes I was. Repeatedly. I can go back and pull out quotes if need be.

If that is your real position then your arguments fail again. By buying, installing and playing a cRPG a participant in the game is tacitly agreeing to the limitations imposed by the medium. If agreement to limitations is what counts then cRPGs are RPGs.

If I accepted that this really meant the same thing, then you would be right. But there is a large difference, IMHO, between the "limitations agreed upon by the participants" that can be altered to allow for a full range of role-playing, so that unexpected/unforeseen actions can be resolved (see, Doug, this is why this element is important) and a "tacit agreement" to follow known or unknown rules and agree to the limitations thereof.

In the event of computer games, the rules are largely unknown at the time of purchase and installation, and are only semi-known through playing (though this last mirrors the 1e DMG advice to a large degree) so that one's tacit agreement might well become one's later frustration. Moreover, that definition would make Monopoly a role-playing game as well.


RC

 

[Kem]

I don't see this sort of shennanigan as actually contributing anything, so until and unless I see something worth responding to, I hope you will understand why I am no longer responding to your posts.

Thats ok. Since you chose to ignore the demonstration of how a Flight Simulator is by your own words a Role-Playing Game, I see no reason to think you are actually argueing a point.

You will note that when I said "I see no rational basis for it not to be so." I then showed you why I see no reason for it not to be so. I did not toss it back to you to disprove. As such your "Burden of Proof Fallacy" was in fact a strawman as I did not force you to prove anything until proving it myself. You CHOSE to ignore the rest of the post until the end of it.

When I said you used "Appeal To Authority" I then provided a example of why using a single person to try and define a term doesn't work. Google has a very loose link on having Google mean "The Name of Their Company" just as Kleenex lost their name to mean "Facial Tissue" as opposed to "The Name of Their Company". Band-Aid is also very close to this also (or did they lose it already?).

People determine what words mean, not individuals.