Computers beat up my role player

[Shadeydm]

The difference is quite large and has nothing to do with hardcore or obsessive. If you want WoW as an RPG there are books you can buy to get it done and when you play that way and Kill the boss you can't go back an hour later and off him again and again, and again. When you play that way you can talk to the potion seller haggle for his goods perhaps even barter.

 

[Doug McCrae]

No it's not a superficial difference when in DnD you kill the clerk in the potion shop he stays dead but in WoW you you can't hit him or affect him in any meaningful way execpt to give him money for potions.
In DnD you can kill the boss and save the world in WoW you kill the same boss over and over again to get different items off his loot table to complete you or your friends set. You really see no difference here?

This would just be a reason why certain MMORPGS aren't RPGs. I believe some, such as Second Life (which I've not played) do allow you to change the environment by creating your own buildings.

In many non-mmo crpgs named npcs stay dead when they're killed. In Morrowind completing the main quest permanently changes the colour of the sky from red (due to persistent volcanic eruptions) to blue.

Or are you saying that WoW isn't a true rpg, but Second Life and Morrowind are?

 

[Doug McCrae]

No it's not a superficial difference when in DnD you kill the clerk in the potion shop he stays dead

At least until Raise Dead is cast on him.

 

[Shadeydm]

This would just be a reason why certain MMORPGS aren't RPGs. I believe some, such as Second Life (which I've not played) do allow you to change the environment by creating your own buildings.

In many non-mmo crpgs named npcs stay dead when they're killed. In Morrowind completing the main quest permanently changes the colour of the sky from red (due to persistent volcanic eruptions) to blue.

Or are you saying that WoW isn't a true rpg, but Second Life and Morrowind are?

I was speaking specifically to WoW because I have extensive first hand experience playing it and because the 5 million players were being used to inflate the total number of people playing RPGs earlier in the thread. Many of the games that have been mentioned I have no first hand experience with so I would not feel comfortable speaking to thier "classification". I will say that when NWN first came out I had very high hopes for the Solstice Tool Set and what it might mean to the evolution of RPGs but for me it never delivered. The concept for the evolution to the next level seemed to be there. People have mentioned NWN servers with live DMs in game controlling the enviroment and that certainly sounds like it is pushing the envelope but I have not experienced it first hand sadly.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Ok so if your ready call my cell phone and John Madden Football an RPG then I am willing to buy the notion that WoW is one as well they all bring about as much to the discussion.

Going back to that.

Ok so lets call John Madden Football an RPG too right after all Im pretending to be Tom Brady and company right? Even better next time I'm out of town on business and call the wife for some adult converstion there can and usually is role playing going on so lets call the telephone an RPG too. Sorry there are limits.

Generally speaking, RPGs in the video game world are usually marked by the ability to level up. This is one reason Ninja Gaiden isn't one. While in Ninja Gaiden you gain new abilities and there is a story, there are no "levels" to gain. The same is true of God of War which isn't considered an RPG because, while your equipment and spells level, the character doesn't. This is why Oblivion is an RPG instead of a FPS. This doesn't always apply, but its a good guideline to follow.

Ok so if your ready call my cell phone and John Madden Football an RPG then I am willing to buy the notion that WoW is one as well they all bring about as much to the discussion.

I'm saying that total freedom is a really really bad definition for roleplaying game.

Here's a good one, in my mind:
1) Assumed role of a character or characters
2) Some kind of codified rules that determine success/failure or similar
3) Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats

I think this accurately depicts the emergence of roleplaying from wargaming.

In a computer game, I am controlling a PC whose actions are limited by the actions that the programmer(s) could think of. In essence, I am playing following the limitations and script of another player, engaging in a simulation of a simulation.

No, you're limited by the rules of the game, not some nebulous "other player." If you were to ask gamers who is playing Xenogears while they hold the controller in their hand, how many do you think are going to say that there's this guy inside their Playstation who is really playing the game?

I don't buy the "unlimited possibilities" requirement of a game to be an RPG. That might be an important quality for your preference, but to use it as a defining characteristic that cannot be done without sounds very elitist. So if others don't care about unlimited possibilities they don't understand the "truth" or some such. When you pick up a wargame and say "Hey, I'm going to call this soldier here Bob!" that is a basic roleplaying game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.

BINGO! YOU'VE GOT IT! That's the gateway that creates an actual role-playing game. In a role-playing game, the RAW are just tools and guidelines for arbitrating player activity; the game master, a live human being, is required to be there interacting with the other players. No set of rules or video game engine can capture the infinite variety of actions, situations, circumstances, and so on that human imagination and social interaction can create.

 

[Gentlegamer]

RPG's are in the eye of the player. When I play Ultima 7, with all of its shortcomings, I adopt a persona, I create goals completely separate from the main game quest, and I try to assume my role as completely as I can. For me Ultima 7 in a role-playing game. Not because of what the programmers intended, but because of what I put into it.

Conversely, in my Friday night D&D game, we have two players who hate role-play (one player has even outright said it aloud). They don't want story, or immersion; they enjoy the strategic challenge of combat, and will pull out comic books to read during the sessions in between fights. For these people D&D is not an RPG.

If you can immerse and role-assume with a reasonable suspension of disbelief, you're playing an RPG. If you can't, you aren't.

"Role assumption" and "role immersion" (or "play-acting") are not the whole of nor are synonyms for "role-playing." The presence or absence of role assumption and/or role immersion is not the dividing line between role-playing games and non-role-playing games.

Playing D&D wholly "strategically" (whether in combat, dungeon crawling, etc.) is still role-playing because of the nature of the game itself.




****************************

Hey Raven Crowking, how's the beer at the tavern? I think I'll join you.

 

[ThirdWizard]

"Role assumption" and "role immersion" (or "play-acting") are not the whole of nor are synonyms for "role-playing."

Right. Role assumption + rules = roleplaying game. Thus you have your roleplaying. "You got your lets pretend in my rules!" "You got your rules in my lets pretend!" And then enjoy the yummy goodness.

In my mind, it is wholly possible to have a single player (no GM) roleplaying game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's a good one, in my mind:
1) Assumed role of a character or characters
2) Some kind of codified rules that determine success/failure or similar
3) Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats

I think this accurately depicts the emergence of roleplaying from wargaming.

I believe that the restrictions of codified rules vs. the ability to modify the rules during play is one of the defining differences between wargames and role-playing games. Thus, I would say that the better definition would be:

1) Assumed role of a character or characters.
2) Some kind of codified rules that aid in, but are not the arbiter of, success/failure or similar.
3) Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on said rules, and at least partially dependent upon the judgement of the participants independent of the rules. This last includes the ability to allow participant (including DM) judgement to supercede the codified rules at any time during the game that the participants feel is appropriate.

EDIT: Nor is the open-ended nature of play a new addendum to the definition to exclude computer games. In the 1e PHB, p. 8 (1978), Gary Gygax writes: "This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and it is integral to the game." Emphasis mine.

No, you're limited by the rules of the game, not some nebulous "other player."

The other player isn't nebulous; it is one or more persons listed in the design credits.

If you were to ask gamers who is playing Xenogears while they hold the controller in their hand, how many do you think are going to say that there's this guy inside their Playstation who is really playing the game?

None. They are playing Xenogears, and Xenogears is a simulation of a RPG. Similarly, in a football game, if you ask anyone who is playing John Madden, very few (if any) will say that there's this guy who is really playing the game. This is an exact parallel.

I don't buy the "unlimited possibilities" requirement of a game to be an RPG. That might be an important quality for your preference, but to use it as a defining characteristic that cannot be done without sounds very elitist.

There goes the "wrongbadfun" argument. If I say that cRPGs are not RPGs, that is a matter of definition. Saying that X is not the same as Y does not confer any value to either X or Y. It says that they are not the same thing.

Saying "apples are not oranges" doesn't make me an apple elitist. When I say "apples are not oranges" and you say "I don't buy that whole non-citrus thing about apples; what an elitist you must be" it says very little about the value of my argument.


RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

I believe that the restrictions of codified rules vs. the ability to modify the rules during play is one of the defining differences between wargames and role-playing games.

I disagree, and I think this is going to be another one of those irreconcilable things. I don't think rules have to be malleable for a game to be a roleplaying game. I can't even wrap my mind around why that would be a possible requirement.

There goes the "wrongbadfun" argument. If I say that cRPGs are not RPGs, that is a matter of definition. Saying that X is not the same as Y does not confer any value to either X or Y. It says that they are not the same thing.

Saying "apples are not oranges" doesn't make me an apple elitist. When I say "apples are not oranges" and you say "I don't buy that whole non-citrus thing about apples; what an elitist you must be" it says very little about the value of my argument.

Except there is no definition to be drawn from. We're really just debating opinions, not looking at any real definitions. I don't think this can even be considered a semantics argument since there is no "true" meaning! Mine just happens to coincide with what the majority of people consider to be RPGs.

Mostly what I don't understand is why you want to use a definition that is different than the generally accepted definition. How many people have to use a term differently than its initial creation before the word's definition changes? How long? That's why it seems a bit elitist, not because you're excluding computer games, but because people at large consider computer games to fall into the roleplaying game category. If there was any debate on this issue, then that's one thing, but really you aren't going to find much of any unless you look very hard.