Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3665764" data-attributes="member: 18280">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.Why not?&nbsp; I would assume that stats are any method of differentiating the abilities of one character instead of another.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In effect, property is like armament, and money like hit points.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.&nbsp; First off, I have played board games where the game is described as &quot;players take the role of....&quot;.&nbsp; Secondly, this distinction isn't part of your definition.&nbsp; 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.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.&nbsp; I am afraid that the wisest course is to agree to disagree.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3665764, member: 18280"] 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. 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: [indent]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.[/indent] 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. 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. It would be strange indeed for a game manufacturer trying to sell to the existing RPG customer base to claim that their game [i]is not[/i] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification