So why are games like Wrath of A and all the other WOTC games like that called boardgames and not role playing games? I've got a real good idea, but I'd like to see you try to explain it.
Marketing, if I had to guess. Gets the product into places it wouldn't otherwise be and keeps it separate and distinct from mainline D&D. Since I'm not overly familiar with it, a quick google search reveals this description:
"A cooperative game of adventure for 1-5 players set in the world of Dungeons & Dragons.
A heavy shadow falls across the land, cast by a dark spire that belches smoke and oozes fiery lava. A cave mouth leads to a maze of tunnels and chambers, and deep within this monster-infested labyrinth lurks the most terrifying creature of all: a red dragon!
Designed for 1-5 players, this boardgame features multiple scenarios, challenging quests, and cooperative game play.
Each player selects a hero; a rogue, thief, warrior, cleric, or wizard. On their turn, each player can explore further into the dungeon (turn over new tiles), move through the already explored parts of the dungeon, and fight monsters. When a new dungeon tile is revealed, there is typically an encounter of some sort, and new monsters to fight are added. Slain monsters reward the players with treasure, and experience points, allowing them to level up and increase their skills during play. Players must cooperate to stay alive, slay the monsters, and achieve the goal of their quest. Each scenario has a different goal - from retrieving a relic, to slaying a vampire lord."
So, we have distinct character classes, experience and treasure gain, exploration mechanics, and typically an over-arching goal. How is that
not an RPG? Saying that this isn't an RPG is like saying Final Fantasy games aren't RPGs because the plot and characters adhere to a set script and you (the player) can only adjust their gear and abilities.
Role-playing is defined as making decisions as someone else would make them. It's just the act of pretending to be someone else. In an RPG, you make decisions as your character would make them.
And those decisions are translated mechanically. Simply by existing that character will shape the story as a result of his presence, regardless of whether or not he's being viewed as a game piece. Inferring from the above description that individual characters can die in Wrath of Asharldon, then a game where the rogue bites it in the beginning is a different story told through game events, whether or not there was any attachment or investment in the character.
If you don't conceive of the character as a distinct individual, but rather as simply a gamepiece, then you can't role-play as that character. That's when you cross the line between an RPG and a board game. As long as you're making decisions that the character would make, even if that amounts to simply choosing which enemy to attack and swinging your sword, then you're still role-playing.
Untrue. Both the dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster definitions for role-play make note that you can role play within situations as much as you role-play other people.
"to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role:
trainees role-playing management positions."
"an activity in which people do and say things while pretending to be someone else or while pretending to be in a particular situation"
: to act out the role of
: to represent in action
: to play a role
In the example of trainees role-playing managers, there's no implication they're given a backstory to go with. You don't need to role-play as manager Joe with 2 kids and a bad mortgage, you just need to experience the required duties (the mechanics, essentially) of the role.
Your second sentence is more or less what I was getting at, you can make purely mechanical decisions (whom to attack, when to retreat, what spell to use) and still be role-playing, even if the character is a blank slate.
