Are CRPGs really role-playing games?

[ThirdWizard]

In order to play a role, and not merely simulate playing a role, you have to be able to make the decisions that you believe that role would make.

Aha! That, then, would probably be the main difference between the two sides, then. I can see assuming a role without the need for any kind of meaningful choice on the part of the player. In acting, you can assume a role even though everything you're going to do is already scripted out. I see the same thing possible in a roleplaying game. Even if the entire game is scripted out, if you are the one assuming that scripted role, then it qualifies.

IAAH (Insert Appropriate Acronyms Here)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Aha! That, then, would probably be the main difference between the two sides, then. I can see assuming a role without the need for any kind of meaningful choice on the part of the player. In acting, you can assume a role even though everything you're going to do is already scripted out. I see the same thing possible in a roleplaying game. Even if the entire game is scripted out, if you are the one assuming that scripted role, then it qualifies.

IAAH (Insert Appropriate Acronyms Here)

I should have said "In order to play a role, and not merely simulate playing a role, within the context of a role-playing game, you have to be able to make the decisions that you believe that role would make."

Unless you are arguing that playing Macbeth on stage now counts as a role-playing game?

Moreover, by the contextual defintion of "role-playing" you espouse above, what prevents Monopoly or Chess from being role-playing games?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I should have said "In order to play a role, and not merely simulate playing a role, within the context of a role-playing game, you have to be able to make the decisions that you believe that role would make."

Won't change my answer, since I don't see any simulation of a simulation going on that you do, though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Won't change my answer, since I don't see any simulation of a simulation going on that you do, though.

By the contextual defintion of "role-playing" you espouse above, what prevents Monopoly or Chess from being role-playing games?

 

[RFisher]

This is what I really don't understand. Why is ability to make up stuff on the fly a defining feature of RPGs? Can you give a factual reason for this to be true? Something based on logic, why this has to be in the definition of RPG?

Because--whatever they might be called--this is the significant difference between RPGs & all games we played before. "Role-playing game"--which to my knowledge had never been used before it was used to describe D&D and similar games--became the moniker for these games despite it being a good or bad one.

Then people started making computer games in the same vein, but these lacked this crucial element. They were called "role-playing games" only in that they borrowed from "real" role-playing games. So, "RPG" also became a moniker for a genre of computer games, but only in this specific context. The general term still referred to games with the significant feature described above.

These days, there are multi-user computer things that can enable--more or less--the playing of a "real" RPG. They are not RPGs themselves, however. They are merely tools that two or more people can use to play an RPG.

Maybe.

Aha! That, then, would probably be the main difference between the two sides, then. I can see assuming a role without the need for any kind of meaningful choice on the part of the player. In acting, you can assume a role even though everything you're going to do is already scripted out. I see the same thing possible in a roleplaying game. Even if the entire game is scripted out, if you are the one assuming that scripted role, then it qualifies.

Acting may be role-playing, but it is not a game. If some people get together & act out scripted parts under the guise of an RPG, that doesn't make it an RPG.

But then, are RPGs really games? Are they puzzles or toys as some have said?

Not that any of that really matters. I don't think I'm going to convince you, & you probably aren't going to convince me. & that's just fine. I wish we could have a discussion of the differences without the distraction of this "true RPG" nonsense, but that doesn't look like it'll ever happen.

 

[ThirdWizard]

By the contextual defintion of "role-playing" you espouse above, what prevents Monopoly or Chess from being role-playing games?

For one, the ability to assume a role is less important than the default or implied gameplay of the actual game. In other words, just because you have the ability to roleplay doesn't make a game a roleplaying game. It has to be in the nature of the game itself.

Secondly, the abilities of each participant is not defined by any inherent abilities to a character being played. Even if there were assumed roles, for example instead of playing the top hat token, you named the character and played as if you were that person, gameplay is not determined by the character's abilities. And, no, money is not character stats, its a resource.

So, to make Monopoly a roleplaying game, first you need some way of characterizing the pieces instead of just thinking of them as tokens built into the rules, and secondly you'll need some kind of rules by which a character's stats influence the gameplay.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For one, the ability to assume a role is less important than the default or implied gameplay of the actual game. In other words, just because you have the ability to roleplay doesn't make a game a roleplaying game. It has to be in the nature of the game itself.

Which computer games cannot be played with the implied gameplay taking more importance than assuming a role?

And, no, money is not character stats, its a resource.

Why can a rpg not be devised where resources become mutable stats? I would say that 3.X D&D has taken quite a few strides in this direction, for example, so much so that implied resources are part of the CR/EL system used to determine appropriate encounters.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

"In order to play a role, and not merely simulate playing a role, within the context of a role-playing game, you have to be able to make the decisions that you believe that role would make."

This definition seems horribly cyclical to me. "Only the human interaction of a living judge qualifies a game for true RPG status because in order to play a role in a true RPG you need to be able to make any decisions you believe the role would make."

So...in your mind, an RPG is only a true RPG if it has some sort of DM-ish figure because...otherwise you're not able to make all the descisions you believe the role would make?

And you don't see that as a rather pointlessly limiting definition of a "true" RPG?

No where else in existence, is that considered "playing a role." Whenever actors are playing a role, it's constrained by the script, the direction, the budget, etc. Whenever kids are playing a role, it's constrained by the environment, the other kids, the props at hand, etc. Even when people are playing societal roles, these are constrained by society and their abilities. And people's videogame roles are constrained by focusing the points at which they can make descisions. Why do RPG's, to be true RPG's in your mind, need to have some sort of adjudicator to be truly "playing a role"? Why can't they really have any number or combination of possible constraints, like every other incidence of "playing a role"? Why this specific, narrow, inflexible position on "true" RPG's?

Heck, I'd say a show like Who's Line Is It Anyway? qualifies as an RPG. The players have roles, they are given these roles (and the limitations) by essentially random chance, and they have to play within these roles as securely as possible. They get scored for it (admittedly, arbitrary scoring, but it certainly wouldn't have to be), and a winner emerges.

Roles are played in a game. Role Playing Game. RPG. Unless Clive Anderson/Drew Carrey qualify as DM's in this scenario, it's an RPG without a DM. And if they *do* qualify as DM's, then the definition of RPG includes every play ever performed, as well, since they're little more than writers, directors, and hosts.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Because--whatever they might be called--this is the significant difference between RPGs & all games we played before.

I would say this is not true. The significant difference is pretending to be your token. It is not the ability to do anything. Your most important aspect barely registers as an aspect in my mind. A fun part of P&P or similar RPGs? Definitely! Something that separates P&P from CRPGs? Of course. Something that defines what an RPG is? Not at all.

Acting may be role-playing, but it is not a game. If some people get together & act out scripted parts under the guise of an RPG, that doesn't make it an RPG.

I didn't say otherwise. I did say that assuming a role in a roleplalying game, however, does not necessitate anything more than following a script as far as the role assumption aspect of the game goes, however. In other words, if its a game, and if there is any role assumption (which can be just reading a script at specific intervals), and your character determines success/failure then you're playing a roleplaying game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Which computer games cannot be played with the implied gameplay taking more importance than assuming a role?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why can a rpg not be devised where resources become mutable stats? I would say that 3.X D&D has taken quite a few strides in this direction, for example, so much so that implied resources are part of the CR/EL system used to determine appropriate encounters.

I'm basing my definitions on what is and what is not accepted to be an RPG. So, I'm going in reverse. I first say "What games are RPGs?" Then I ask "What do these games have in common?" So, take the Legend of Zelda (non-RPG) vs. Oblivion (RPG). In both your character grows more powerful as the game progresses, but in Oblivion, success/failure of actions is determined by by your stats whereas LoZ's success/failure is determined by twitch gaming. That difference is the main divide, IMO, in video game genre definition.