Computers beat up my role player

[Gentlegamer]

Deleted, because it was uncalled for.

You're not done yet.

 

[Piratecat]

Getting banned for making a factual observation... What will they think of next?

Spewing insults isn't "a factual observation." Even if it were, Morden, if you want to discuss moderation please email the moderator in question (or any moderator, or report the post.) As per our rules, don't discuss it in the thread.

Email me with any questions.

In the mean time, folks, don't pick a fight. If you have a problem with a post, report it. Our tolerance for rudeness, crudity and snarkiness in this thread has just about bottomed out.

 

[DungeonMaester]

I disagree with ENWorld's popular defintion of Role playing, but that is because in the context of word is defined by a dictionary, presuming it is the same context.

Role playing would be defined as being a role. Actors play a role, as do D&Ders, as do Crpg, they are playing a role even if it has little effect on how the stories they have. (Actors and Crpgers both have little choice over role they play on the story)

You can disagree respectively with my opinion but I am sure actors would disagree with you and ect, ect. The problem is that it is arbitrary, with semantics as the main argument.

---Rusty

 

[Numion]

*We should be careful if we are going to introduce "metagaming" as a term in this discussion, because it is often thought of as a synonym for cheating in a role-playing game (because role-playing is being used as a synonym for role assumption or role immersion). In my opinion, the only "metagaming" that is cheating in a role-playing game is when the players peek at the DM's map, notes, etc. and use that knowledge to their advantage.

Metagaming is using knowledge the character wouldn't have. It includes, but is not limited, cheating by having adventure specific information beforehand. Other examples are adjusting the characters actions by acknowledging it's just a character in a game, which of course a character inside the gameworld wouldn't know.

It's not all bad; for example all groups will use metagame information when the characters are looking for a new comrade to join them after a PC has died; they don't 'accidentally' choose an NPC to join in and take the original PCs spot, even though a cleric was needed but one player decided to try a barbarian instead. In a way, PCs recognize other PCs, and will usually quickly trust new PCs while they wouldn't trust NPCs. It's just a way to make the game run smoothly, and is by no means cheating, of course.

But in short, it ties quite directly to role immersion / role playing / whatever it's now called, because you can't metagame without breaking your immersion a little bit.

Anyways, all the definitions here are making my head hurt

 

[Slife]

Yes, they are.

F'r example, nethack.

The Dev Team Thought of Everything

 

[DungeonMaester]

I disagree with ENWorld's popular defintion of Role playing, but that is because in the context of word is defined by a dictionary, presuming it is the same context.

Role playing would be defined as being a role. Actors play a role, as do D&Ders, as do Crpg, they are playing a role even if it has little effect on how the stories they have. (Actors and Crpgers both have little choice over role they play on the story)

You can disagree respectively with my opinion but I am sure actors would disagree with you and ect, ect. The problem is that it is arbitrary, with semantics as the main argument.

---Rusty

Role Playing

Yeah.

---Rusty

 

[Raven Crowking]

With respect - you included the "if", and I plan to use it. I don't think anyone has that authority.

Fair enough. That If/Then statement was included for a reason. However, if you argue that no one has the authority to definitively define the term, you must also accept that one cannot definitively define what the term includes or does not include.

Thus, should I declare that eating ham sandwiches is role-playing, there is no definitive way to contradict me.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why? What sort of meaningful conversation are you going to have with a black pudding, or a chimaera, or a gibbering mouther?

It's sad because your original statement cut out a whole lot of potential for games. If you're having fun, and your players are having fun, that's great. However, artificially limiting yourself perforce limits the potential of your game.

There's a great deal of difference between saying

There are times, and depending on your campaign style potentially a lot of them, when there's just no good reason to chat with your foes.​

and saying

Well, in my experience, most monsters don't really talk back all that much, and those which do - being, generally, slobbery hordes of twisted souls - aren't much interested in what the PCs have to say.[/quote]

which I understood to mean that you cannot have the possibility of talking to the vast majority of the creatures you meet.

So, now, there's a distinction between "operating as a role-playing game" and actually being a role-playing game?

A computer football game uses the rules of football, and in that sense operates as football, but nonetheless is not actually football.

Doesn't that just say that, really, D&D is a "better-than-average RPG simulator" and not an actual role-playing game?

No, it says that if you have all of the trappings of football, you can still do something that isn't football.

If my NWN server is 100% DM-and-party, is it a roleplaying game? What if it's 95%? What if that 5% is "back in town down-time," which would be handwaved in a "real" RPG anyway?

Is that a meaningful difference?

If the DM is not limited in potential by the programming, then I would agree that it is a role-playing game, so long as the DM is involved in all interactions. If the program limits the judgment calls that the DM can make, then I would not agree that it is a role-playing game.

RC​

 

[Treebore]

Amen, brother! I want to take both sides of the 'roleplay vs rollplay' debate and smash their heads together. I'm in it for the fun. If the game is fun, great...be that will in-character banter or hack-n-slashing your way through a dungeon. It's all the same.

The only way the game was 'meant' to be play was to be fun.

Yes, my sentiments as well.

 

[Slife]

If the DM is not limited in potential by the programming, then I would agree that it is a role-playing game, so long as the DM is involved in all interactions. If the program limits the judgment calls that the DM can make, then I would not agree that it is a role-playing game.

RC

So, let's say we've got a party playing ODnD with a DM who is a bilingual. He is a native English speaker, but is not entirely fluent in, say, Russian.

He wants to make a judgment call to a Russian player, but has momentarily forgotten the Russian word for pirate, so he can't.

By your definition, he is not playing a role playing game.