Are CRPGs really role-playing games?

[diaglo]

i voted no.
they are computer games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure what you mean.

If, by the contextual defintion of "role-playing" you espouse, Monopoly is prevented from being a role-playing game because "the ability to assume a role is less important than the default or implied gameplay of the actual game", then it must follow that for any other game to be a role-playing game the opposite must be true (i.e., "the ability to assume a role is more important than the default or implied gameplay of the actual game").

I asked what computer games meet this criteria, and why. However, I may well have asked what games meet this criteria, and why, because certainly D&D can be played, as many have pointed out, where the default or implied gameplay of the actual game is more important than the ability to assume a role.

IOW, if this criteria is critical, I seriously doubt that there are any role-playing games at all.

(And why is Legend of Zelda not a role-playing game in the sense that any computer game is? Don't I take the role of Zelda? If you are starting with the given "LoZ is not a role-playing game" I'd be curious as to where that given came from.)

RC

EDIT: Also, accepted to be role-playing games by whom?

 

[RFisher]

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.

Then that's perhaps the crux of the matter. Pretending to be your token is insignificant to me. It barely registers as an aspect in my mind. It is no where near as significant...to me.

I mean--sure--I play & enjoy games like that, but never if I can be playing a TRPG instead.

So, I think that pretty much confirms that you & I are just going to have a difference of opinion on this matter.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Zelda is an Action/Adventure game. That's its classification, I think for the reasons I listed.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_puzzle_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game

I hate using Wikipedia for definitions, however it is usually good enough for a starting point.

And, I don't mean the ability to assume a role is less important. I mean the ability to assume a role is implied by the game itself. You can roleplay in Monopoly, but nowhere in the rules or guidelines does it talk about characterization or personalities or anything implying assuming the role of your token. The token is just a piece that moves around a track.

If the rules said something about "Wilfor, the moneygrubbing kingpin from Britain is represented by the Scottish terrier. He rolls 3 dice for movement, taking the best two and has the Haggle ability letting him pay only half rent" then maybe we're moving into roleplaying game territory. But, it doesn't say anything like this, so there's no debate necessary on whether or not Monopoly is a roleplaying game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Then that's perhaps the crux of the matter. Pretending to be your token is insignificant to me. It barely registers as an aspect in my mind. It is no where near as significant...to me.

I think that realization of each other's priorities makes the discussion quite worth it. At least to me.

 

[Kaodi]

If a computer role playing game were not a role playing game, would it not still be a role playing game game? What is a game of a game, if not a game?

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, I don't mean the ability to assume a role is less important. I mean the ability to assume a role is implied by the game itself.

Of course, we differ on what "the ability to assume a role" means. I don't think computer games have this ability, any more than Monopoly does, albeit that they try mightily to imply otherwise. I guess any board game that says "You and your friends take the role of..." is automatically a role-playing game, even if it is Candyland, whereas Legend of Zelda, where you assume the role of Link (to the limited degree possible in the game) is not because of.....well, I'm still not sure what the difference is.

I guess we have to agree to disagree here.


RC


EDIT: BTW, your wiki definitions include "The earliest CRPGs were inspired by early role-playing games, especially Dungeons and Dragons, and attempted to provide a similar play experience." That would seem to bolster my claim that they were simulations of the games they attempted to provide a similar game experience to, IMHO.

 

[ThirdWizard]

EDIT: BTW, your wiki definitions include "The earliest CRPGs were inspired by early role-playing games, especially Dungeons and Dragons, and attempted to provide a similar play experience." That would seem to bolster my claim that they were simulations of the games they attempted to provide a similar game experience to, IMHO.

I wouldn't argue that they tried to provide a similar play experience. Final Fantasy had the 4 man party, basically made up of the fighter, rogue, mage, and cleric (with possible substitutions of monks and fighter/mages for any of the above). It had mind flayers, Law vs. Chaos, and all kinds of things that were inspired directly by D&D.

But, I don't see that as making it any more a "simulation of a roleplaying game" as Tunnels & Trolls is a "simulation of a roleplaying game" because it was inspired by D&D.

 

[Ourph]

And that is the single thing that separates an RPG from a "conventional" game. A computer game can't make stuff up as it goes along.

1. This assertion is a long way from your original assertion that RPGs are defined by "the rules being subservient to the story", which is the statement I was originally taking issue with.

2. I agree that a human DM who can act as impartial referee is one of the major differences between a pen-n-paper RPG and a cRPG, but I don't think it's the defining feature of an RPG.

 

[Ourph]

Then that's perhaps the crux of the matter. Pretending to be your token is insignificant to me. It barely registers as an aspect in my mind. It is no where near as significant...to me.

But why does the significant difference have to be the cut-off between RPGs and non-RPGs? Why can't it just be the cut-off point between pen-n-paper RPGs and cRPGs?

It seems to me that the cut-off point between RPG and non-RPG should in some way address the presence or lack of RP in the game. The presence of a referee to adjudicate the rules doesn't have anything to do with how the rules integrate roleplay. Boxing, football, basketball, etc. all have referees to adjudicate the rules (the idea of an impartial referee who controls some aspects of the game certainly isn't a NEW idea), yet I doubt anyone would label them as roleplay.

The presence of an impartial referee to adjudicate aspects of roleplay may certainly be a cut-off point between one type of game and another, but it seems to me that if you have two types of games 1) a game in which an impartial referee adjudicates aspects of roleplay; and 2) a game in which there is no impartial referee to adjudicate roleplay; that (in order for those definitions and distinctions to be useful) you have to recognize that both types of games involve roleplay and that the distinction between them cannot be made by calling one a "roleplaying game" and the other a "non-roleplaying game". The distinction requires some other nomenclature that, instead, specifically addresses the presence or absence of an impartial referee with control over aspects of roleplay.