It was about running around and killing shit. "Roleplaying" and pretending you're a dwarf is gay nerd shit.
That doesn’t change anything, does it? I think you are attributing to much importance for historical accidents and labels, and too little importance to the nature of things. The first cosmologists and physicists were pre-Socratic philosophers who tried to explain everything using one single natural element without rigor. They were also philosophers at the time. Does that mean that physics and cosmology should aim to explain everything using one natural element without rigor? No, it doesn’t. Does that mean that philosophers should try to explain everything using one natural element? No, it doesn’t. Take astronomy. The first astronomers were astrologists, and Copernicus itself didn’t thought that astrology was incompatible with astronomy. Does this imply that astronomy nature is associated with astrology? No, it doesn’t. Take painting. The first paintings were attempts to represent the world in a realistic manner. Does that encapsulate the nature of painting? No, it doesn’t, because we also have abstract art, cubism, whatever.
Now, take role-playing games. The first pen & paper games labelled as RPGs were combat games. Does that mean that they were cRPGs in which you can assume multiple roles, including the ability to avoid combat? No, it doesn’t. They were just strategy games. Later on, some people made new games that we are also labelled as RPGs, but were genuine RPGs. The fact is that RPG, or cRPG, are terms that have been badly treated. Today, even an action game such as Skyrm is considered as a cRPG. That is the consequence of using labelling practices to determine the nature of something. It is a superficial way of seeing things. I’m pretty sure that Britney Spears is not classical music if someone decide to labelled it that way.
Please understand that isn't my actual position. I am being facetious because it is kind of annoying having to explain that combat-focused RPGs have just as much a right to be considered RPGs than games that are focused on getting different ending slides.
A comment that faithfully reflects your poor understanding of things. Our understating of the nature of science, philosophy, painting, etc., evolves and mature with time. Why this should be different with RPGs? The very fact that has been a practice of labelling completely different games as RPGs should tell you that labels can’t always be trusted and doesn’t decide the issue. From the facts that combat games have one element in common with RPGs, and were mislabeled as RPGs for decades, doesn't follow that they should be considered as RPGs. To use tradition of labeling RPGs in this discussion is circular reasoning, because the tradition is what is being questioned in the first place.
