Computers beat up my role player

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If you are really interested in keeping this open as a discussion, try answering the following:

How is this different from a wargame? I assume that, in a wargame, I assume the role of an army or the commanding general of that army. There are codified rules that determine success/failure or similar. There are a series of encounters (engagements) in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats (ex. infantry vs. armor).

How is this different from Monopoly? In Monopoly, I take the role of a real estate tycoon. There are codified rules. My "stats" are monetary and properties owned, which certainly have an effect on success in a series of encounters (turns, where you "encounter" various properties and parts of the board, and may encounter houses and hotels to boot).

How is this different from Chess? In Chess, I take the role of two knights, two bishops, two rooks, a king, a queen, and eight pawns. Each of these characters has different "stats" (moves allowed, plus special abilities such as castling, and limitation such as not being able to move into check) that materially affect success. Each new configuration of the board is a new "encounter".

How is this different from eating ham sandwiches? When eating a ham sandwich, I take the role of a hungry person and of various ham sandwiches. Each sandwich has flavour stats depending upon how I make it that materially affect whether or not I can succeed in choking it down. Each sandwich is a new encounter. Indeed, depending upon how the sandwich is made, each bite can be a new encounter.

Now, I admit that I am joking about the ham sandwich (which has no codified rules), but I have seen the Monopoly and Chess arguments pushed forward seriously here on EN World. So, I have to ask....do you think they are RPGs, and if not, why not?


RC

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Depends on the CRPG, doesn't it?

Personally, the Ultima series from 5 on to 7 looked like a pretty good CRPG series to me. Especially after 6, when the world became pretty much interactive on levels that would be viewed unnecessary in P&P RPGs. "You want to do what? Bake bread? While the Gargoyles are running over the Kingdom? Are you serious, Avatar?" Sure, NPC reactions and backgrounds were still scripted, but even that became pretty extensive. After being flirted at by some Royal Minter in U6, I started thinking twice before engaging in deeper conversation with some female NPCs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

You know, I wanted to write the definitive answer, but I don't know that I have the talent to do that. All I can say is that, if this is true, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Except there is no definition to be drawn from.

The guy who coined the term "role-playing games" offered one, as I recall. So did I. So did you.

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.

Now, that is a statement that is subject to verification.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game

Many gamers feel that it is inaccurate to use the term "role-playing game" to describe games in which the characterization of the game characters is determined by the game designer rather than the players' portrayal of their roles. However, this is a criticism of the term rather than of the games themselves.​

I hope you will note again the refutation of "X is not Y meaning that X = wrongbadfun".

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?

First off, you have yet to demonstrate that yours is the generally accepted definition. I certainly agree that those who make and sell computer games wish it to be.

Second, if a word has one meaning, and then another meaning comes along, that word now has two definitions rather than one. The original meaning does not somehow change, and when used in the context of the original meaning, it is still the original meaning that applies. This is true for every word and term, not just RPGs, and is part of the way language works.

Finally, if people started selling apples as oranges, how long would it take you to agree that there was no difference between the two?

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

How is this different from a wargame? I assume that, in a wargame, I assume the role of an army or the commanding general of that army. There are codified rules that determine success/failure or similar. There are a series of encounters (engagements) in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats (ex. infantry vs. armor).

I'm not experienced with wargames, but I assume the main point is not to control a character or characters, but to play through a single scenario. Note that above I did say that if you start calling your character "Bob" you're now playing a roleplaying game.

But, the main difference is going to be the intent of the game. You can use a wargame to roleplay, but you aren't using it as intended, therefore it isn't a roleplaying game. Assuming an actual role where you start to think about yourself as a war leader, ordering men on the battlefield and such, then I would assume its moved into the realm of roleplaying game, even if it is still a competition between players with no GM.

How is this different from Monopoly? In Monopoly, I take the role of a real estate tycoon. There are codified rules. My "stats" are monetary and properties owned, which certainly have an effect on success in a series of encounters (turns, where you "encounter" various properties and parts of the board, and may encounter houses and hotels to boot).

Money and property aren't your character's stats. Note above my point about how God of War and Ninja Gaiden don't qualify even though equipment has stats. The character needs stats which are used in some way to determine challenges. This can be as simple as a free form list of what the PC is good at to a codified skill system.

The stats have to be intrinsic to the character for a very good reason, because many games have some kind of numbers that are tracked to determine outcomes. But, because in a roleplaying game you're taking over a persona, there being some kind of rules regarding that persona is important, which take the form of stats. Can your character do X is answered based on these rules.

It also isn't, again, the intent of the game to roleplay.

How is this different from Chess? In Chess, I take the role of two knights, two bishops, two rooks, a king, a queen, and eight pawns. Each of these characters has different "stats" (moves allowed, plus special abilities such as castling, and limitation such as not being able to move into check) that materially affect success. Each new configuration of the board is a new "encounter".

You aren't taking the role of those pieces any more than in backgammon you're taking the role of little disks or in poker you're taking the roll of kings, queens, and numbers. There is a very different thing in saying "I am a bishop" and "I move my bishop."

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

So now that I've attempted to clarify it.

A little bit about the simulation of a simulation thing. There is a game out there which, I think, is considered a simulation of RPGs: Munchkin. Note that it can probably qualify by my rules above. Why don't I consider it an RPG? Because it is quite explicitly a simulation or parody of roleplaying games. In fact, in this game, you are pretending to play pretend. I don't see anything like this in video gaming, and that's what I would consider the simulation ala Madden football example.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The guy who coined the term "role-playing games" offered one, as I recall. So did I. So did you.

Because its helpful to know where we stand.

First off, you have yet to demonstrate that yours is the generally accepted definition. I certainly agree that those who make and sell computer games wish it to be.

Would you or would you not say that there are more people who play video games than play tabletop roleplaying games?

Second, if a word has one meaning, and then another meaning comes along, that word now has two definitions rather than one. The original meaning does not somehow change, and when used in the context of the original meaning, it is still the original meaning that applies. This is true for every word and term, not just RPGs, and is part of the way language works.

If there are two definitions of "roleplaying game" one encompassing tabletop games and one encompassing video games, how does that make video games not roleplaying games? Definitions expand over time. I believe, for example, "their" is now acceptable as a singular, no matter how much I wish it weren't.

Finally, if people started selling apples as oranges, how long would it take you to agree that there was no difference between the two?

I think more of it along these lines: If people started referring to all fruit as "apples" for whatever reason, how long until calling an orange an apple would be permissable?

 

[Doug McCrae]

How free is the man who chooses to curtail his own freedom? The players (including GM) of a rpg are a bit like a poet who chooses to write in the sonnet form. By adopting a set of rules, whether published or house rules doesn't really matter, they have chosen to limit themselves. Then once those rules are adopted the players (again including GM) can actually find their wishes thwarted by those rules. Their options have been limited by their own previous decisions.

Surely a group that adopts a more detailed rule set, such as 3e or GURPS or HERO and has a custom of following those rules rather than being more easy going, is much less free than the make-things-up-as-you-go ignore the rules type of group with a system such as Amber?

And yet they are both playing a rpg. Therefore can what is integral to rpgs be found in freedom?

 

[ThirdWizard]

And yet they are both playing a rpg. Therefore can what is integral to rpgs be found in freedom?

Huh, based on what you said, I would say "rules."

EDIT: That's what separates "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians" from being roleplaying games after all.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Reasonable and rational people don't need to be "definitive" in order to have meaningful, constructive, and useful conversation on a topic. Humans are very good at pattern matching on their own, without having to shoehorn their thinking too much before the fact by overly specific definitions of terms.

Returning to the literary analogy again - fans, writers, critics and teachers have for years been able to work with the concepts of genres without ever having one fully comprehensive "definitive definition". If I say 'Sci-fi', just about everyone here has a clue about what I'm saying, though there's no objective definition that allows us to corral all stories to being either in the genre or outside the genre.

The real boggle is this - there are already terms that define the experience Mr. Gygax is talking about: Tabletop (or pen and paper) RPG and Live action RPG. Functionally, nobody has yet demonstrated a need to redefine the root term to exclude computer games. The computer games are already recognized as being somewhat different from the others, just as live action games are considered different from tabletop.

So, other than the value of rooting around to see what various people may consider to be an RPG or not (and thus come closer to understanding the consensus definition), what is the point of trying to separate them out? What purpose is served?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not experienced with wargames, but I assume the main point is not to control a character or characters, but to play through a single scenario.

In some cases, you play through a series of scenarios, each player taking on a side, and the effects of one scenario carry through into the later scenarios.

Money and property aren't your character's stats.

Why not? I would assume that stats are any method of differentiating the abilities of one character instead of another. In fact, I can see no difference between what you wrote:

But, because in a roleplaying game you're taking over a persona, there being some kind of rules regarding that persona is important, which take the form of stats. Can your character do X is answered based on these rules.​

and my using money to determine whether or not I can pay your rent, and my using property to determine whether or not I can charge you rent. In effect, property is like armament, and money like hit points.

You aren't taking the role of those pieces any more than in backgammon you're taking the role of little disks or in poker you're taking the roll of kings, queens, and numbers. There is a very different thing in saying "I am a bishop" and "I move my bishop."

I've heard the exact opposite argued here on EN World by someone trying to prove that cRPGs were RPGs.

I'm not sure that I buy your comments about the intent of the game writers. First off, I have played board games where the game is described as "players take the role of....". Secondly, this distinction isn't part of your definition. Thirdly, I am in no way convinced that the intent of the game writers is relevant at all; I would argue that the definition of a game genre follows function, not intent.

A little bit about the simulation of a simulation thing. There is a game out there which, I think, is considered a simulation of RPGs: Munchkin. Note that it can probably qualify by my rules above. Why don't I consider it an RPG? Because it is quite explicitly a simulation or parody of roleplaying games. In fact, in this game, you are pretending to play pretend. I don't see anything like this in video gaming, and that's what I would consider the simulation ala Madden football example.

It would be strange indeed for a game manufacturer trying to sell to the existing RPG customer base to claim that their game is not a role-playing game.

I would go further, but as you cannot see how the limitations of programming form an artificial barrier between you and the character, so that you are playing not the character, but the programmer's conception of the character, it would be difficult to describe in a way that you would understand why I think you nailed it on the head:

A cRPG is to RPGs what cFOOTBALL is to football.

I am afraid that the wisest course is to agree to disagree.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Would you or would you not say that there are more people who play video games than play tabletop roleplaying games?

I honestly don't know, and any guess I might make would be pulled from my.....ear.

If there are two definitions of "roleplaying game" one encompassing tabletop games and one encompassing video games, how does that make video games not roleplaying games? Definitions expand over time. I believe, for example, "their" is now acceptable as a singular, no matter how much I wish it weren't.

Given your definition, I would agree that video games may be RPGs. But, please recall that the context of the question arises in relation to Mr. Gygax's comments about the decline of RPGs. And, given that context, no matter how many people call apples oranges, saying that there are a whole lot of apples out there doesn't mean that oranges haven't declined.

It is certainly "permissable" for you to call anything you like a role-playing game. Just as it is "permissable" for you to restrict that definition however you like. I could go back several pages on this thread and find my saying the same thing in several different ways. However, in context of Mr. Gygax's comments and the refutation thereof this is, IMHO, immaterial.

So, yes, I think that Mr. Gygax's definition is the preferable one. And, yes, I agree (once more) that another definition of the same term is now in use that encompasses things that the first does not. However, that does not make the items in the second definition RPGs under the first.

RC