Computers beat up my role player

[ThirdWizard]

EDIT: While we have no conclusive data yet, I would say that the acceptance of cRPGs as RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.

Now go make the same poll on gamefaqs.com or some other video game forum.

Or at least on a forum not mostly populated by D&D grognards.

Unless, of course, you think this is a statistically accurate poll.

EDIT: Speaking of which, check out this page on gamefaqs.com.

Or perhaps gamespot's Top Rated Role-Playing games.

And I'm sure 1up.com's visitors are really thinking that they aren't looking for RPGs, but "real" RPG simulations.

 

[Slife]

Not exactly.

In a role-playing game, the setting and character are mutable based on the needs of the game. What lies "over that hill" might not be determined beforehand, but you may still go that way and find something (because the DM can "wing it"). Similarly, who your character is (and more important, what he can attempt/how his role is defined) is only partially determined beforehand. You conflate stats with character here. Your character is made based upon how those stats are used, and what actions that character takes, for good or ill. In a computer game, many of these decisions (essential for actually playing a role) are taken away from you.


RC

I don't see why nethack isn't a role-playing game by this definition.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In a computer game, many of these decisions (essential for actually playing a role) are taken away from you.

Except, according to Gary Gygax himself and others on your side of the debate, such playing of a role - which I believe they would term role-assumption - is not a necessary requirement in order to be a roleplaying game, in that you can have role-assumption and not be "playing an RPG," and that you could be "playing an RPG" and not have any role-assumption.

No matter how friggin' ridiculous that sounds.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDIT: While we have no conclusive data yet, I would say that the acceptance of cRPGs as RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.

Looking at it now, it's basically a 50-50 split down the middle.

Which would indicate that condemnation of CRPGs as being incapable of being RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Disguise it as you will, your attempt to control the definition implicitly and inherently places a value judgment upon the term, and as someone who spends his day trying to make games that offer complex and interesting choices in a world that reacts to those choices, I'm insulted that I'm apparently not doing enough to make a real RPG by your standards.

Really? I think not. This is the wrongbadfun argument.

We are both making a distinction based upon whether or not the player(s) of the game can make role-playing choices extemporaneously AFAIK.

Is Monopoly a role-playing game? If not why not?

Is Madden Football real football? If not why not?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see why nethack isn't a role-playing game by this definition.

Again, certainly, I will grant that there are computer programs that can aid the DM as a form of communication, and some computer "games" might at times fill this niche....insofar as the technical proficiency of the DM allows the "game" to be a help and not a hinderance to actual play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Looking at it now, it's basically a 50-50 split down the middle.

Which would indicate that condemnation of CRPGs as being incapable of being RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.

Really?

Where did I suggest that condemnation of CRPGs was widespread? I believe that I said exactly the opposite, that a secondary definition was apparently successfully created to sell computer games as RPGs, and because the computer game designers were emulating RPGs.

RC

 

[Slife]

Again, certainly, I will grant that there are computer programs that can aid the DM as a form of communication, and some computer "games" might at times fill this niche....insofar as the technical proficiency of the DM allows the "game" to be a help and not a hinderance to actual play.

Nethack is mostly single player. There's no DM involved, except for an extremely talented dev team. (which puts up a new version every now and then, taking into account player input. Of course, the game is open source, so anyone can mod it if they like. )

All the contingencies and special cases programmed in, however, create an illusion of there being a GM.

As an example (and something that would probably come up in a game of DnD), the nethack version of the cockatrice is a relatively small chicken-like creature that petrifies by touch. It is entirely possible to kill one with ranged attacks or spells, or by wearing armor that covers the entire body. After killing it, you can pick up the corpse and use it as a weapon, turning enemies into stone (as long as you're wearing gloves, at least. If you aren't, too bad for you.) If you fall down a pit, or stairs, though, you can die from having it land on you.

The game also keeps track of entirely optional codes of conduct, but doesn't force you to keep to them. Want to be a vegetarian pacifist? It's possible, but extremely difficult.

 

[takyris]

Really? I think not. This is the wrongbadfun argument.

And you are the one making it. I think so. Wayne stated, and you pointed me at his post by way of agreement, that someone running a module in a manner that he disapproves of is actually not playing an RPG at all. On an RPG forum, that's an attack. A passive-aggressive one that can be disguised with handwaving and "I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion" excuses, but an attack nonetheless.

Ultimately, though, whatever you want to call the video games everyone else is calling CRPGs is up to you. The rest of the world appears to be moving on.

We are both making a distinction based upon whether or not the player(s) of the game can make role-playing choices extemporaneously AFAIK.

AFAYK would be incorrect. My definition of an RPG is any game that contains a given number of the following:

Character customization (choosing race/background, choosing classes and skills)
Character progression (character gets new abilities and/or improves old ones)
Inventory system (you get to choose what you use, with different effects and tradeoffs for different items)
Resource management (your abilities or items are limited in numbers or uses -- you can run out of spells or arrows)
Tactical combat (the game rewards or requires strategic thinking along the "what spell/weapon/ability to use when" lines)
Free exploration (the game has more than one path -- there are areas where you can wander and hit content in whatever order you like)
Story immersion (the game has a good, solid story that provides a good reason for all the stuff you're fighting and when)
Story influence (the game responds to choices you make by giving different content, so different playthroughs yield a different story)

I don't know what the magic number there is -- 3? 4? 5? -- but I do know that taking just one or two elements and declaring them the sole defining point(s) of whether something is an RPG is an attempt to declare one's personal preferences reality. I might not like Oblivion, but I can accept it as an RPG.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And you are the one making it.

No. Stating that X is not Y is not a statement related to the value of either X or Y. The "wrongbadfun argument" is when a poster says "If you say Z, you are claiming my game to be wrongbadfun" whether true of not as a means of godwinning an argument.

Ultimately, though, whatever you want to call the video games everyone else is calling CRPGs is up to you. The rest of the world appears to be moving on.

Apparently not "everyone else" or "the rest of the world".

AFAYK would be incorrect.

Ahem. That response was in relation to your statement about my motives and WayneLigon's motives, and the "we" in that statement are WayneLigon and I. Of course, you might be correct that I am incorrect.........It would hardly be the first time. Still, I'd rather let WayneLigon tell me if I am misreading his intention or not.

I rather agree with this gentleman from the poll thread, who put it much better than I:

The way I see it: An abstract game exists within its rules. A roleplaying game exists outside its rules.

For example, many boardgames have a story, but it is subservient to the rules. I can't take over Catan by force, I can't rezone Baltic Avenue into an industrial zone, my queen can rule in the place of my captured king.

In a roleplaying game, the rules are subservient to the story. I can try to swing on a rope and knock over my foe, even though this situation isn't covered in the rules. My character sleeps at night, even though there are no rules that say I have to.

In a "computer roleplaying game" I can't do whatever I want; I can only do what is programmed. It's a very complex abstract game, it contains the trappings of D&D, but it's not a roleplaying game.

RC