Well, I'd have assumed that that would be the case here, especially with people of a certain age (like say around mine) who grew up when the PC were just coming into its own. I played the entire Ultima series, DnD Gold box games, NWN, Elder Scrolls, etc., and I have also played DnD from AD&D up to 3.5 (and other systems).Raven Crowking said:Of course, what would be best would be to preselect a group to answer that plays both rpgs and computer games, and then allow only them to answer, but that isn't possible here. If you can think of a forum in which those criteria are more likely to be met, it would be interesting to see how folks in that forum respond. Link when you've set the poll up.
You were surprised here; you might be surprised there as well.
RC
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Are CRPGs really role-playing games?
- Thread starter Raven Crowking
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Me too. But I assumed that the usage of rpg for computer games was more widely accepted than the poll seems to be showing. It is really a very different dataset that I expected! Sure, I thought there might be a 1-in-10 or a 1-in-20 "No"......
BryonD
Hero
ThirdWizard said:
Meh, to me the language in the actual question trumped the final option (which only serves to confuse the results).
A panda bear is CALLED a bear, but it is NOT a bear.
I still call them panda bears for convenience, but the correct answer to "Are panda bears really bears?" is no.
I know what the term CRPG means. I use it. But I still say "no" to this poll because it asked are they "really" RPGs.
Or, to put it another way. I don't call a panda bear a "bear". I call it a panda bear and know that has a different meaning. I don't call a CRPG an RPG. I call it a CRPG because I know it has a different meaning.
Raven Crowking
First Post
BryonD said:
Yeah, I was concerned about that, too, but I think it probable that Yes and No are significant to the question, while the other two options are significant for context.
davidschwartznz
First Post
What do you do when your player characters do something not explicitly covered by the rules?Ourph said:
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Describe such an action, please.davidschwartznz said:
davidschwartznz said:
There's a difference between a PC doing something not specifically covered by the rules and doing something not allowed by the rules. If a PC does something not covered by the rules, that's not (as you put it) "the rules being subservient to the story". In most RPGs the rules specifically call for a referee/GM/DM/etc. who is there to adjudicate things in the game that may not be covered, or if covered may be ambiguous. In other words, the referee's decision is part of the "rules" of the game - the rules aren't being subservient to anything.
My reading of "the rules being subservient to the story" is that you're going beyond situations not covered by the rules and specifically ignoring the rules or breaking the rules to allow things to happen which somehow advance the story. The overall gist of your previous post seems to support this interpretation.
When needed, I am happy as a referee to adjudicate things not covered by the rules. I am not willing, however, to allow story/plot concerns to take precedence over enforcement of the existing rules. Nor do I think that you must make that kind of value judgement of story/plot over rules in order to be said to be playing an RPG. YMMV.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Yeah, story vs. rules is a fun debate, but probably not very pertinent to the poll directly.
Hmm... if a video game conveniently ignored the rules randomly, though, would that be one step closer to the DM Turning Test being passed? "Rocks fall, you die" on the XBox?
Hmm... if a video game conveniently ignored the rules randomly, though, would that be one step closer to the DM Turning Test being passed? "Rocks fall, you die" on the XBox?
Similar Threads
