Computers beat up my role player

[Raven Crowking]

Reasonable and rational people don't need to be "definitive" in order to have meaningful, constructive, and useful conversation on a topic.

Reasonable people would have left this conversation long ago.

Where definition comes in is in the original context of Mr. Gygax's statement that RPGs were declining. If Mr. Gygax's statement is taken to mean RPGs as they were originally defined, and a refutation is based upon a change in that definition, then in effect one can say that apples are not declining because there are lots of oranges.

Though, of course, the original context of the debate (and the reasons for Mr. Gygax's statement) have perhaps long been forgotten, and perhaps for the best, with the original title of this thread.

And now, Gentlegamer, I really shall meet you in the bar.........


RC

 

[Numion]

When they invent a computer game where my character can decide on a whim that he likes the cute daughter of that shopkeeper over there, can woo and win her then I'll say that CRPGs are actual RPGs.

Until things like these can occur, then there really is no discussion here: CRPGs are not RPGs.

You couldn't do that in my D&D game.





What? I'm not comfortable playing romance RP with male players. Kinda gay.

Am I not running a roleplaying game in your opinion?

 

[Mallus]

You couldn't do that in my D&D game.

Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make. Wherein lies the crux of the difference between pen-and-paper RPG's and CRPG's.

 

[Umbran]

Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make. Wherein lies the crux of the difference between pen-and-paper RPG's and CRPG's.

How is making particular conscious decisions on limitations you'll implement any different than making a conscious choice to accept the limitations of a particular computer program?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make.

Except it's also a conscious choice on the part of the CRPG designer to not have "Random Shopkeeper Daughter X" be "romanceable," and to have [Important NPC X] actually be romanceable.

 

[Numion]

Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make. Wherein lies the crux of the difference between pen-and-paper RPG's and CRPG's.

Not conscious choice. I think it's hardwired, but I don't know what the science is on that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Destroy a castle in such a way that it remains destroyed forever, and can have no future effect on the game?

Absolutely. It can be removed from the map the next time the server is reset (analogous to the DM changing the layout of the minis on his table in-between sessions) or, if destroying the castle is anticipated beforehand, the DM could just as easily create a map that has empty field where the castle used to be, and teleport the players there after it has been destroyed.

Take an action that was unforseen by the programmers? For example, in D&D there are only so many uses for equipment listed, but I am able to invent new uses for equipment, limited only to my imagination and the nature of the equipment itself. The rules approximate a jug, for example, but do not define it, so that the DM can allow me to break the jug to use a shard to cut the ropes that bind me.

Since NWN absolutely allows you to just roll dice on your own, a DM could easily ask for a Strength check to break a jug followed by another to break the ropes (or a melee attack).

The DM could then dispel the Entangle effect affecting you. While he may not be able to spawn an actual "pottery sherd" in your inventory, does that invalidate the process (especially given that, if he wanted to, he could spawn a dagger in your inventory and then hit you with a penalty on attack rolls)?

I'm sure I'll think of more, but I admit that I am somewhat ignorant of exactly how far the computer simulation engines have progressed, and am open to being convinced if there is a real argument to be made.

NWN is unique in that it was originally designed to be run by a DM and a group of players. Given that a normal, table-top group probably has no problem abstracting out certain things (e.g., I don't need to have 40 pot minis in a room that I'm describing as "covered in pots"), there shouldn't be any problem doing the same thing in NWN.

Moreover, since the game's release, a group of coders has spent a lot of time working on a toolset called the DM-Friendly Initiative, which basically has the goal of making more and more of the game running accessible to the DM during play.

For instance, when creating an NWN module, you can set the lighting level in a particular region, and it's hard to change on the fly (while you and your players are actually moving through the module). The DMFI tools allow you much more control over this, including creating new light sources on the fly.

 

[Gentlegamer]

*Steps out of the tavern*

The difference is, in a role-playing game, the shopkeeper's daughter can be placed as "setting window dressing" without any intention of her having any more importance than that.

Later, as play progresses, she can become more than that. The game master can respond extemporaneously to the player trying to woo her. The game master can either allow the wooing to go on or not (based on play-acting the girl . . . the girl could reject the advances!) or simply tell the player that such action is pointless because the game master won't participate in play-acting such a thing.

The point is, you are not bound by what the original intention of what the shopkeeper's daughter was supposed to be. In a video game, the shopkeeper's daughter can do more than was predetermined by the programmer before you ever played the game.

*Steps back in the tavern*

 

[Numion]

The point is, you are not bound by what the original intention of what the shopkeeper's daughter was supposed to be. In a video game, the shopkeeper's daughter can do more than was predetermined by the programmer before you ever played the game.

That's a pretty minor difference, which is only apparent from the DMs point of view. I mean, if a player approaches an NPC and finds her 'wooable' how's he going to know whether the DM had intended it?

Anyways, I think Umbran got it right earlier. We can have tabletop RPGs, live action RPGs, computer RPGs. All are RPGs, yes, different, but still RPGs. Nobodys enjoyment would be lessened by that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

because the game master won't participate in play-acting such a thing.

This is different from a CRPG in which you can never romance the barmaids how?

"Guys, I will never, ever roleplay a romantic encounter between you and a female NPC. You can pretend like it happens, but it will never happen at my table."

"Guys, I will never, ever code the ability to have a romantic encounter between you and a female NPC. You can pretend like it happens, but it will never happen at my table."