What about "Role-playing" actually matters in a CR

[Alex_Steel]

Were you as surprised the day you found out heavy metal music has no relation neither to chemistry nor to heavy industry?

Seeing how many drugs there were on the scene and how many fat chicks listen to metal, I'd say there is lots of relation to both.
Now excuse me, I have to wear my worker's helmet.

Alex, what we play on our computers are crpgs, not rpgs. Meaning, adaptations of the rpg experience (tm) to a computer game. Roleplaying a character in an ambient as limited as a videogame means just choosing which of the preset options you like best (i.e, not actually roleplaying)

It seems more accurate to say that computer roleplaying games try to provide something similar to / heavily inspired by the gameplay of pen and paper RPGs, only on a computer.

This is what I mean, of course. I'm not playing a fighter talking to my computer with a stentorian voice. Neither do I wear an armor while sitting on my chair.
Roleplaying in the cRPG sense. Even if that sense is a "new" thing.

Rolling the dice was replaced by the cpu doing it.
The DM explaining what you see etc was replaced by the visualizations and/or the game explaing what you see etc.
The rules remained the same.
And the "in game" choices of the players(p'n'p roleplaying) were replaced by dialogue options, story choices and different ways to solves quests.

Sure, most of the first games failed to fulfill the latest. They just went for the combat and the narrative. But a little later the genre managed to catch up, one way or another. It was never perfect but it was good for what it was! It gave you the sense of roleplaying, even with the limited resources of a computer.

If most of the games failed to emulate roleplaying, it's a failure of the game designers. Saying that roleplaying has no relevance to an RPG, is dumb. There is a reason lots of people around here praise Torment and similar games. There's is a reason Fallout: NV is getting good reviews. Their combat, which at the very least exists(as it should, it is part of an RPG), may not be good or even mediocre, but there is roleplaying in the computer sense.

You may call it storyfag-ness or anything similar but it's part of what an RPG should have, along with combat, character creation, character advancement, rules and more rules.

Roleplaying to an RPG is like bluffing to poker. Very essential to the game itself but many people will ignore it.

For most of these people, modern designers created the online versions of the games.

 

[Bruticis]

I often find myself "Role Playing" when choosing a line of a dialog in a crpg (say I'm playing a paladin, I'd probably turn down a reward because it seems like that's what my character would do) but as soon as the dialog is over I go back to stealing everything that isn't nailed down to satisfy the inner hoarder/power gamer that I really am. Maybe I should just start playing thieves in every game and go for the full RP experience. Not sure what is about dialog, perhaps it's being forced to slow down and actually read/think about my actions.

 

[Phelot]

Hmmm...

Well, I can enjoy a good story in a video game and get into it, but those are rare and I don't actually role play in the game, I just enjoy the story if it has a good one. For the most part, I do power game. If I know or sense a choice is going to get me the best reward, I'll go for it and I have yet to play a game that sufficiently makes me feel bad for doing something evil. Basically, if the game lets me get away with it then I'll do it and no few lines of NPC dialogue crying is going to stop me. Hell, you're lucky if there's any consequence to stealing shit right in front of an NPC.

I also enjoy exploring in games. I don't know if that is roleplaying or just enjoying the sights and sounds that a game offers. Obviously, if these are absent or crappy from a game then that game gets a bit of a hit from me.

 

[jancobblepot]

Were you as surprised the day you found out heavy metal music has no relation neither to chemistry nor to heavy industry?

Seeing how many drugs there were on the scene and how many fat chicks listen to metal, I'd say there is lots of relation to both.
Now excuse me, I have to wear my worker's helmet.

Alex, what we play on our computers are crpgs, not rpgs. Meaning, adaptations of the rpg experience (tm) to a computer game. Roleplaying a character in an ambient as limited as a videogame means just choosing which of the preset options you like best (i.e, not actually roleplaying)

It seems more accurate to say that computer roleplaying games try to provide something similar to / heavily inspired by the gameplay of pen and paper RPGs, only on a computer.

This is what I mean, of course. I'm not playing a fighter talking to my computer with a stentorian voice. Neither do I wear an armor while sitting on my chair.
Roleplaying in the cRPG sense. Even if that sense is a "new" thing.

Rolling the dice was replaced by the cpu doing it.
The DM explaining what you see etc was replaced by the visualizations and/or the game explaing what you see etc.
The rules remained the same.
And the "in game" choices of the players(p'n'p roleplaying) were replaced by dialogue options, story choices and different ways to solves quests.

Sure, most of the first games failed to fulfill the latest. They just went for the combat and the narrative. But a little later the genre managed to catch up, one way or another. It was never perfect but it was good for what it was! It gave you the sense of roleplaying, even with the limited resources of a computer.

If most of the games failed to emulate roleplaying, it's a failure of the game designers. Saying that roleplaying has no relevance to an RPG, is dumb. There is a reason lots of people around here praise Torment and similar games. There's is a reason Fallout: NV is getting good reviews. Their combat, which at the very least exists(as it should, it is part of an RPG), may not be good or even mediocre, but there is roleplaying in the computer sense.

You may call it storyfag-ness or anything similar but it's part of what an RPG should have, along with combat, character creation, character advancement, rules and more rules.

Roleplaying to an RPG is like bluffing to poker. Very essential to the game itself but many people will ignore it.

For most of these people, modern designers created the online versions of the games.

Joined: 27 Mar 2011

 

[mondblut]

Roleplaying to an RPG is like bluffing to poker.

Hah, I knew you'll grasp on that.

Bluffing in poker, while not necessary, contributes to one's victory when employed. Playing pretend in a game commonly referred to as "roleplaying game" (god, I wish I could strangle the retard who came up with this term first) does nothing to contribute to one's success, and is in fact more often than not openly counterproductive and detrimental, forcing one to go for suboptimal decisions. Like always dropping spades because this suit isn't cool enough

 

[Alex_Steel]

Counterproductive? Suboptimal?

Dude, do you live in China getting paid to play games? Or did you just forget we are talking about games and not some kind of business?

The purpose of a game is to give us enjoyment.

If your definition of fun is just to beat the system, then I can understand your point of view. But unlike poker, when playing an RPG, it is just you and your computer. And your computer doesn't give a fuck whether you win or lose.

If you are having fun playing a game, in any way, then the purpose of the game is fulfilled. And a lot of people are having fun roleplaying in roleplaying games(weird huh?). If you like it, it contributes a lot to the main goal of a game.
You may think it is just make-believe but isn't make-believe the satisfaction you gain by beating a single player game that was designed to be beaten?

 

[Phelot]

Counterproductive? Suboptimal?

Dude, do you live in China getting paid to play games? Or did you just forget we are talking about games and not some kind of business?

The purpose of a game is to give us enjoyment.

You do not understand Mondblut and the Mondblutian Armies. There is no fun. There is only stats. If you must, you may call the stats "fun" but the point of the stats is to raise them at all costs and to win the so called "game."

 

[Excidium]

This just in: Different people might have fun in different ways.

 

[ToddWasRight]

This just in: Different people might have fun in different ways.

Ok Captain Cookies-and-Hugs.

Fallout 2 is fun because of Navarro runs. Oldfag SSI games are fun because they can be exploited. Fun = stat min/maxing. There is no other definition.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

This just in: Different people might have fun in different ways.

Ok Captain Cookies-and-Hugs.

Fallout 2 is fun because of Navarro runs. Oldfag SSI games are fun because they can be exploited. Fun = stat min/maxing. There is no other definition.

 

[Vagiel]

Wizardry=RPG, Torment=RPG, Diablo=RPG, Fallout=RPG, Final Fantasy=RPG, Demon Souls=RPG.

Can we agree that there is a need for sub genres? And do not tell me ARPG or JRPG. Because the first just means real time and the second is so vague that really has no meaning.

 

[Phelot]

Well, we already have story fag and stat fag. The problem is that both would be SFRPG so... BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD!

 

[St. Toxic]

The convoluted op almost fooled me into thinking that this wasn't a repeat of the endless "define rp" discussion, or at least a new approach to it. Gute shite, mang.

Can we agree that there is a need for sub genres?

I can agree with you. In fact, I remember agreeing with that sentiment throughout the whole of a 20-something page thread on the subject.

As for my personal thoughts on rp, these days I'm rather fond of equating it to participation in a simple game of Q&A, which is the game that I've been playing with my friends throughout the entirety of my life. For those who have never played it, it is the simplest possible game that you can play -- no material equipment needed and rules can be made on the fly -- yet within it one may find boundless complexity. I assume that it can even be played solo, though one may need a Prosperous mind to find that truly entertaining.

In short, person A poses a question in form of a scenario, which person B has to answer according to the rules that one assumes operate in the scenario.

Example: A: You're on a boat that's sinking. What do you do?

Now, the situation is obviously open to interpretation. The goal here isn't clearly defined, so the idea of winning in this scenario is open to personal definition -- if not survival, perhaps your victory is some personal gratification (a quick wank) before you die, or even death itself.

Example: B: Swim for it.

And here we have the possibility for person A to define less obvious limitations to your imaginary sinking persona.

Example: A: Oh btw, you have no arms.

Notice also how there is little that B can do to impact on the limitations of his fictional character. No amount of flailing with his real arms or raising the tone of his voice will make his armless avatar swim for safety. That is essentially, at least for me, the core of role-playing.

You have the imaginary alter-ego, the choices appropriate for the situation that he/she/it is in and the limitations imposed on him/her/it/derp. To translate this into a computer game requires mostly that it sticks to the formula as closely as possible, that is:

- while the choices you make obviously retain their situational quality, they cannot be made for you

Naturally a sinking boat will leave you in the water eventually, but doing nothing is as valid a choice as any, hence progression comes both out of and despite your choices.

- there is no direct connection between the abilities that you yourself possess and those of your imaginary alter-ego.

And the same obviously applies to limitations, allowing for such concepts as magic but making it impossible to weasel out of hopeless situations by using rl diplomacy.

And that's about it. With varying degrees of complexity and adherence to the formula one gets varying grades of rpg's and different priorities in game-play result in different sub-genres.

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

Hey, St. Toxic I enjoyed your Q&A story. Your criticism about the convolutedness of my OP is warranted as when I am not quite sure how or what question to ask I do indeed get wordy. However, I am familiar with those "What is a RPG?" threads, and I am in no way going for that. What I wanted was more personal. In short, "Without other like-minded people around in a CRPG, for whom role-playing serves to enhance shared entertainment, why role-play?"

I hope this is more concise for posters (though so far people have been keeping things on a personal level). Thanks for all the thoughtful posts, everyone.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

The only thing that makes an RPG an RPG is roleplaying. In the stats or in the story its still roleplaying.

Roleplaying and what makes an RPG has been debated fo-eva, and it wont stop but that is ok with me. I have a simple two word term that defines an RPG.- Butterfly Effect

the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions; where a small change at one place in a nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect


Games that specialize in that are RPGs even if it’s a simple mechanic. Even games that arent known for it can have it. Like the example I use in Oblivion; I used a randomly generated character which I often do. In Oblivion I generated a character that was magically apt but was born under the sign that stunts magika. Now my character cant join the Dark Brotherhood because that would piss off the gods and I need their blessing to replenish my magika. This led me to become a master Alchemist. That completely changed the game. I might have spent an hour or two mixing herbs that I wouldn’t have given a fuck about if I was born under a different sign.

That another thing. Those of you who only roleplay themselves then proceed to min/max everything should find another genre.

If you have seen the movie. The mailbox scene.

Video game RPGs struggle setting up scenarios like the mailbox scene because they don’t realize that key decisions in life are almost never sudden. Bad decisions that lead to horrible consequence are at the end of a chain that is surrounded by good things that help you ignore the problem and accept the consequence.

RPG designers should play some college sports games and RTSs. I cant name a game that locked you into more negative consequences than CH 2k8. Medieval Total War and Stronghold did it too.

 

[Phelot]

I still say an RPG is whatever a dev/pub wants it to be. Don't get offended, if some game that looks like an FPS is claimed to be an RPG then just don't be fooled. It's not like you were going to get it anyway, so who cares? If the government passed a law stating that there would be some new Department of RPG Identification that would ban any game that doesn't follow rigid RPG guidelines from being called an RPG, devs/pubs STILL wouldn't make your precious turn based CRPGs. It just ain't gonna happen so don't sweat it. Form your own opinion on what is and what isn't an RPG and go from there.

 

[RK47]

Counterproductive? Suboptimal?

Dude, do you live in China getting paid to play games? Or did you just forget we are talking about games and not some kind of business?

The purpose of a game is to give us enjoyment.

You do not understand Mondblut and the Mondblutian Armies. There is no fun. There is only stats. If you must, you may call the stats "fun" but the point of the stats is to raise them at all costs and to win the so called "game."

Or you can just call it 'fun = winning'

 

[PorkaMorka]

I just don't understand how people can support a definition of "computer roleplaying game" under which the early Wizardry games don't count as computer roleplaying games.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Words and definitions change over time.

 

[Phelot]

Counterproductive? Suboptimal?

Dude, do you live in China getting paid to play games? Or did you just forget we are talking about games and not some kind of business?

The purpose of a game is to give us enjoyment.

You do not understand Mondblut and the Mondblutian Armies. There is no fun. There is only stats. If you must, you may call the stats "fun" but the point of the stats is to raise them at all costs and to win the so called "game."

Or you can just call it 'fun = winning'

With stats there is no winning. There is only increasing.

 

[Wyrmlord]

If I had a dime for every time someone said, "A roleplaying game is a game where you play a role"....

 

[Phelot]

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

There ya have it folks. Wikipedia doesn't lie. They have checks and balances.

 

[Jaesun]

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

There ya have it folks. Wikipedia doesn't lie. They have checks and balances.

Well shit...

 

[St. Toxic]

They're not wrong though. In assuming the role of a character, such as say Master Chief, one has to be granted full control of his persona in regards to both its physical and moral aspects. An easy test whether or not one has assumed a role is whether it's possible to drive the story forward with two or more opposing moral stances, like "kill everything that moves" v.s "killing is wrong" or "kill all humans". As for the physical aspect of assuming a role, the player needs to be informed of the raw capabilities of the character he's controlling, outside of what the player is capable of. The same way that we know, or at least think we know, our own limits in regards to say intelligence and strength, we must have a workable representation of the characters strengths and limitations for a game to be considered an rpg.

Now, going by the image, we do have something of the sort in Sims, and the game while filling the criteria above, at least up to a point, still falls short of an rpg. Here we enter into "fictional setting" and how to best define it.

For one, I'm not sure why the setting has to be fictional; a historical rpg, where you take on the role of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and tackle communism in the way you want would still be an rpg as long as it retained the necessary rpg elements, so I would certainly remove "fictional" from the definition. As for setting, I would argue that it has to present a personalized challenge to the player in order to be considered a setting -- an obstacle that the character has to conquer. If the setting doesn't incorporate a challenge, you get pure sandbox -- sure, it may emulate the time and place and the physics of the chosen locale, but it makes your choices inconsequential and so hinders roleplay.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

RPGs kind of suck anyway. I think I've finally turned the corner and realize that the genre itself is just a poorly conceived mesh between strategy/tactical games and adventure games.

:trueKodexer: