Crispy™ What is an RPG Attempt #186,091

[Reapa]

I don't owe you a thing. Especially after your rudeness to me. Go fuck yourself.

stop being such a cunt. it's like getting into a fight and demanding not to be hit in the face. rudeness is the very essence of the codex. learn to cope with it.

 

[King Crispy]

Okay, fuck you too then.

 

[Stelcio]

yeah, as if rpgcodex were a good reference for anything. ffs. also the best rpg doesn't mean it was the ideal rpg. it just means others managed to make even worse rpgs.

Who said it was ideal? Nobody. Still, best means closest to ideal, doesn't it. You said it yourself, it managed to fullfill RPG definition better than others. And yet it failed utterly in making a key RPG element by your book meaningful or worthwhile in any way and actually is heavily inferior in that regard compared to most competition.

the game might have been as good as it is without combat but it wouldn't have been an rpg.

It's like saying adding wings to the fastest car in the world makes it the fastest plane in the world. Total nonsense and complete logical detachment.

over and out.

Suit yourself.

I don't owe you a thing. Especially after your rudeness to me. Go fuck yourself.

Your response to my first post was total class though, real gentelman's way of conducting a respectful discourse.

 

[King Crispy]

I replied to your WoT post, complete with its BOLD highlights, in a joke thread that I started, with a dismissive one-liner. I didn't call you any names, I didn't demand anything from you. You in turn call me a "presumptous (sic) piece of shit". Now you expect gentlemanly discourse?

 

[DavidBVal]

yeah, what you've played really proves me wrong...

You don't know how logic works, do you? Yes, if anyone can play an RPG without combat, then:

i just said a game without combat is not an rpg.

... is proved wrong.

You probably think half the Chaosium original Cthuluh modules, in which you had to avoid combat to stay alive, were not roleplaying, right?

Of course most RPGs include violence, but it's not a defining factor, as the existence of non-combat roleplaying proves to everyone with a functional brain. So you can have a good RPG with little combat, just as you can have a good RPG in which other "typical" features are missing, like, open exploration, or even a complex story, if the other aspects and the global design of the game make up for it. Torment is an example, but ToEE is the opposite example, both are great RPGs. As long as you control your character, and there's an underlaying rules system that defines what succeeds and what fails, it is an RPG.

 

[Stelcio]

I replied to your post with a dismissive one-liner.

Exactly. Complete lack of regard and basic respect to your debater. And yes, I expected gentelmanly discourse - up to that point. Since you acted hostile, I retaliated. Don't start a debate if you lack ability or will to host it properly.

Whatever other points you raised (joke thread, yeah, right, read the last few pages) are irrelevant in this case.

 

[King Crispy]

Okay, chief. You win the thread.

 

[Cadmus]

Do we have a definition for what is a pen and paper RPG as opposed to Monopoly or is that somehow self-explanatory? Can somebody tell me?

 

[Kaivokz]

Do we have a definition for what is a pen and paper RPG as opposed to Monopoly or is that somehow self-explanatory? Can somebody tell me?

In monopoly I always role-play a utility-minimizing behavioral economist whose only objectives are to stay in the game and make sets of deals with other players to lower their overall gains.

 

[Dorateen]

Monopoly, the Role-Playing Game

 

[Reapa]

Who said it was ideal? Nobody. Still, best means closest to ideal, doesn't it. You said it yourself, it managed to fullfill RPG definition better than others. And yet it failed utterly in making a key RPG element by your book meaningful or worthwhile in any way and actually is heavily inferior in that regard compared to most competition.


It's like saying adding wings to the fastest car in the world makes it the fastest plane in the world. Total nonsense and complete logical detachment.


Suit yourself.


Your response to my first post was total class though, real gentelman's way of conducting a respectful discourse.

You don't know how logic works, do you? Yes, if anyone can play an RPG without combat, then:



... is proved wrong.

You probably think half the Chaosium original Cthuluh modules, in which you had to avoid combat to stay alive, were not roleplaying, right?

Of course most RPGs include violence, but it's not a defining factor, as the existence of non-combat roleplaying proves to everyone with a functional brain. So you can have a good RPG with little combat, just as you can have a good RPG in which other "typical" features are missing, like, open exploration, or even a complex story, if the other aspects and the global design of the game make up for it. Torment is an example, but ToEE is the opposite example, both are great RPGs. As long as you control your character, and there's an underlaying rules system that defines what succeeds and what fails, it is an RPG.

the discussion is suspended 'till the quoting system gets fixed. i'm tired of having to constantly repeat myself.

 

[Lurker King]

well, aod did basically remove the combat entierly from every talker playthrough. and it removed meaningful talk from any combat playthrough. it made you choose between being able to say smart things and hold a weapon as if some weird universal law prevented humans from being able to do both. then it served you that merchant master in the second town that bruteforced his way to the top of the merchants guild but still required you to put more and more skill points into the talker skills if you didn't want to end up thrown in to the street with no job. vd himself says playing a hybrid would be walking a very fine line and i'm gonna add it will get you locked out of a fucking lot of interesting content. you may be able to justify shit like that by saying well reality also has certain stat and skill checks, but if i wanted to play reality i wouldn't be sitting in front of the pc.

I’m not talking about the quality of the game. Someone could think it is a bad game, it doesn’t affect my point. What I’m saying is that if anything should classified as a cRPG, it should be AoD. The game follows to the letter what a cRPG should be. But there is so much misconceptions about the genre that people almost immediately qualify the game as an CYOA. In any case, since you insist so much about ideal cRPGs, I think that the perfect cRPG would be a game that do everything we expect from a PnP with technological restrictions. For me, the combat is less important than the reactivity, since reactivity is one of the main goals of a cRPG. However, combat, writing, etc., are also important.

Do we have a definition for what is a pen and paper RPG as opposed to Monopoly or is that somehow self-explanatory? Can somebody tell me?

There is none rigorous definition whatsoever, but that is not a terrible problem because we have a general consensus about the type of things we considered to be PnP RPGs. We can list its main characteristics, etc.

 

[Reapa]

I’m not talking about the quality of the game. Someone could think it is a bad game, it doesn’t affect my point. What I’m saying is that if anything should classified as a cRPG, it should be AoD. The game follows to the letter what a cRPG should be. But there is so much misconceptions about the genre that people almost immediately qualify the game as an CYOA. In any case, since you insist so much about ideal cRPGs, I think that the perfect cRPG would be a game that do everything we expect from a PnP with technological restrictions. For me, the combat is less important than the reactivity, since reactivity is one of the main goals of a cRPG. However, combat, writing, etc., are also important.



There is none rigorous definition whatsoever, but that is not a terrible problem because we have a general consensus about the type of things we considered to be PnP RPGs. We can list its main characteristics, etc.

since quotes don't work right any more and i'd have to manually search your last post to remember what you were talking about. this discussion is suspended until they fix the quotes.

 

[eremita]

There is none rigorous definition whatsoever, but that is not a terrible problem because we have a general consensus about the type of things we considered to be PnP RPGs. We can list its main characteristics, etc.

You mean like elements?

 

[Karellen]

Do we have a definition for what is a pen and paper RPG as opposed to Monopoly or is that somehow self-explanatory? Can somebody tell me?

That's actually relatively clear. In a traditional board game, there is a ruleset known by all participants which defines the victory condition and all possible interactions available within the game. A player cannot do anything that is not described by the rules. The rules might occasionally be a bit lax, but only within the very clear limits of the game's scope - for instance, in Monopoly, you have a lot of freedom to trade and make deals with other players, but you cannot start a proletarian revolution and have all your competitors sent to gulags. On the other hand, in a pen and paper RPG, it is always possible to attempt actions not described in the game system, in which case the game master will improvise how success is determined and what happens as a result of the action. The result is that in a pen and paper RPG, there is an infinite amount of possible interactions, and also the game master is basically omnipotent, since he's basically above the ruleset and the game system. This also means that the game master has no victory condition.

A board game might have one of the players take a role analoguous to a Game Master, as is the case in something like the Milton Bradley HeroQuest. It's still universally defined as a board game instead of a PnP RPG, though, because both the normal players and the player controlling the monsters have a limited amount of possible actions unde the rules; the normal way to play it is as an asymmetrical wargame where the Game Master is using the entirety of the very limited powers at his disposal to try and defeat the heroes.

It follows, incidentally, that you could take D&D and turn it into a non-RPG by restricting both players and the game master to a clearly constrained set of legal moves and actions and give both a victory condition they're expected to try and reach using those rules. That's actually how some people play D&D, and there's a D&D board game which works precisely like this, which is fine, but at that point it's basically a fantasy adventure wargame and not an RPG.

 

[Lurker King]

You mean like elements?

You are missing the point. My argument is that something is a cRPG only if it has all the RPG elements that we can implement given our technological limitations. To affirm that a game is a CRPG because it has stats and combat is not enough, because it should had skill checks, reactivity, etc. In a certain sense, the definition of a cRPG should be normative, at least in the sense that it represents our attempt to represent PnP in another medium.

 

[Lurker King]

As for "intrinsic attributes" ie character sheets, people have tried to make this argument in the past but at the end of the day, how complicated your character sheet is is just a matter of ruleset. Certain rulesets have less stats than others yet there is no fundamental cut-off for how complicated a ruleset needs to do for it to be a RPG. Look at Bioware's latest Dragon Age game - the ruleset in that game is so fucking simple they even got rid of assigning attributes, yet Bioware and everyone else calls the game a RPG.

But it is precisely because its intrinsic RPG attributes are so simplistic that we can state that it is a bad cRPG.

The problem with your definition is that the bulk of CRPGs - RPG video games - today don't emulate any PnP RPG. Instead, they emulate existing CRPGs. For example, think about this for a moment - what PnP RPG does Skyrim try to emulate? Any PnP RPG you could think of? Thought not.

But you are just assuming what you need to prove. It is obvious that someone that think that cRPGs are games with certain RPG elements will not classify Skyrm as a cRPG. Moreover, cRPG clones will indirect emulate PnP because they have PnP elements. You can’t overcome this just because developers are people and have a bunch of interests.

I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that any developer is "trying" to fit their games into the the RPG genre. Developers don't think that way. They don't care about how you define RPGs and whether their game is a RPG. Developers look at other games they've played and think, "this game is cool and all, but it still lacks XYZ, now I just need to add XYZ, and it's be an awesome new hit!" Developers think in terms of existing video games, not in terms of genres, and that's what people who want to evaluate these games properly also need to be thinking about.

There is some serious irrationalism ideology going on here. Of course, the developers want to implement their ideas, but they are also doing a certain type of game and motivated by certain types of PnP games and fiction. But suppose they don’t want to implement every RPG element, and some of the RPG elements that are implemented are only a coincidence with their ideas. In that case, they are not making cRPGs, but something else, since a cRPG is the result of an attempt to implement a RPG in videogames and has some core elements, like systematized reactivity, that other games lack.

And that part about ignoring the nature of RPGs makes the whole game making business mysterious. If a developer is just trying to implement what he thinks is cool when he is making a cRPG, why the game end up with stats, skill checks and reactivity? Because they are cool features or because he likes RPG features? The fact that developers are not theorizing about the exact definition of cRPGs all the time, doesn’t imply that they are not working within certain implicit assumptions about the features that a game of this type should have. When a director is making a horror movie, he is not theorizing about the definition of horror genre, but he knows all too well what he must implement to have a good film.

 

[Stelcio]

I think that the perfect cRPG would be a game that do everything we expect from a PnP with technological restrictions.

My argument is that something is a cRPG only if it has all the RPG elements that we can implement given our technological limitations.

In a certain sense, the definition of a cRPG should be normative, at least in the sense that it represents our attempt to represent PnP in another medium.

a cRPG is the result of an attempt to implement a RPG in videogames

Your standpoint is all too clear. You consider a game an RPG only if it emulates a traditional PnP RPG experience. But while it's true that cRPG genre was inspired by D&D, it never tried to emulate the experience, it was always distinct in that it used similiar mechanics, but created different experience with them. Just like planes never tried to be birds, they were only inspired by them. CRPGs are more or less as old as tabletop RPGs and throughout those 40 years they became more and more distinct from tabletop games. Those two things went different ways from day one. You mistake genesis of the genre for its essence and emulation for inspiration.

There is none rigorous definition whatsoever, but that is not a terrible problem because we have a general consensus about the type of things we considered to be PnP RPGs. We can list its main characteristics, etc.

That's also where you are wrong. If D&D remained only RPG game out there, this could be true, but tabletop RPGs are 40 years old now and became much, much wider and diverse genre. You can't now say something is emulating tabletop RPGs without specifying which ones exactly. And I have to add that literally every, even most barebone system can work for tabletop RPG session provided skilled GM. Even system from Skyrim that you refuse to classify as cRPG. That way of defining cRPG just doesn't work.

 

[Shadenuat]

Usually when they put a shotgun to my head I answer that RPG is a simulation of an adventure (rules&numbers being the simulation part). In a few moments later I'd probably correct myself for something like "simulation of an interactive narrative".
The "game" part in RPG technically is of key importance because game usually means "rules", and interactive story can be played without pnp rules (larp/acting).

But with that I kinda shit on combatfags in a way. Then again, I am not a total combatfag and for me the best RPG is like Arcanum where the best part about the game is interactivity and how it interprets those little numbers you put into your character sheet and simulates them in it's narrative.
Games like Diablo and such, in my mind I see them as isometric action/arcade games with fapping on numbers.

 

[King Crispy]

When asked the question "What is an RPG?" one is expected to define what a role-playing game is, which includes all forms of that type of game. You cannot respond by saying that a computer role-playing game is a simulation of a pen-and-paper role-playing game because you haven't defined that either. It's a cop-out.

If you want to start by explaining the history of pen-and-paper role-playing games and progress from there, that's fine. But you don't see Webster's retelling the history of WWII when defining what a blitzkrieg is.

Take a shot at the question or gtfo.

 

[Douchebag]

Are you given enough resources to play a role in an interactive environment?

Yes? This is a RPG.

No? This is not a RPG.

Stats are not inherent to RPGs but they are part of the potential resources allowing you to play the role you want. The more resources to play the role you want, the more of a RPG it is compared to whatever other genre it incorporates. Many games considered ''adventure'' are more RPGs than Diablo 2 or Shadowrun or Witcher. While Diablo 2 or Shadowrun barely qualify as RPGs, Witcher is also limited because are stuck with the character of Geralt, and what Geralt would say between either idealistic Geralt, or pragmatic Geralt.

My 3 cents.

 

[Lurker King]

Your standpoint is all too clear. You consider a game an RPG only if it emulates a traditional PnP RPG experience. But while it's true that cRPG genre was inspired by D&D, it never tried to emulate the experience, it was always distinct in that it used similar mechanics, but created different experience with them. Just like planes never tried to be birds, they were only inspired by them. CRPGs are more or less as old as tabletop RPGs and throughout those 40 years they became more and more distinct from tabletop games. Those two things went different ways from day one. You mistake genesis of the genre for its essence and emulation for inspiration.

When I say they are trying to emulate the experience in a different medium, I’m assuming they want to create a different experience inspired in PnP. You say that cRPGs become more distinct from them, but it is precisely the opposite. Never in history had we had so many games with reactivity, skill checks, etc. The problem is that they are still too few in comparison with the rest, and are often poorly designed or don’t have the challenge of some old-school tittles. If you think about it, it is natural that so much cRPGs are bad games because they are super difficult to make. Some people get angry at the emphasis on writing and reactivity as if the energy spent on those features are the reason most recent games suck in the rest of their elements. This is like complaining that developers should forget about designing cRPG features and focusing on adventure and action elements, which is really retarded.

That's also where you are wrong. If D&D remained only RPG game out there, this could be true, but tabletop RPGs are 40 years old now and became much, much wider and diverse genre. You can't now say something is emulating tabletop RPGs without specifying which ones exactly. And I have to add that literally every, even most barebone system can work for tabletop RPG session provided skilled GM. Even system from Skyrim that you refuse to classify as cRPG. That way of defining cRPG just doesn't work.

Just because someone can use a pen as a sword that doesn’t male a pen in a sword. Just because someone decides to use a rudimentary system as a role-playing game, that doesn’t make a role-playing game. You can role-play playing Mario, but that doesn’t make Mario a RPG. The problem is that you have this magical conception about definition of artefacts in which the nature of stuff X is controversial as long as there is someone that defies its definition using it for something else, or calling other stuff X. If you think like that, there is no pertinent discussion about the nature of RPGs, cRPGs, chairs, art, etc.

 

[Lurker King]

Are you given enough resources to play a role in an interactive environment?

Yes? This is a RPG.

No? This is not a RPG.

Stats are not inherent to RPGs but they are part of the potential resources allowing you to play the role you want. The more resources to play the role you want, the more of a RPG it is compared to whatever other genre it incorporates. Many games considered ''adventure'' are more RPGs than Diablo 2 or Shadowrun or Witcher. While Diablo 2 or Shadowrun barely qualify as RPGs, Witcher is also limited because are stuck with the character of Geralt, and what Geralt would say between either idealistic Geralt, or pragmatic Geralt.

My 3 cents.

I don’t think that in an adventure game you have enough resources to play a role in an interactive environment. You have resources to play only one role and in one exact sequence. In a certain sense, you have even less resources than in an action game with flavor dialogue in it. The only thing in which adventure games are more RPGish than action games in general are the setting and history.

 

[Lurker King]

When asked the question "What is an RPG?" one is expected to define what a role-playing game is, which includes all forms of that type of game. You cannot respond by saying that a computer role-playing game is a simulation of a pen-and-paper role-playing game because you haven't defined that either. It's a cop-out.

If you want to start by explaining the history of pen-and-paper role-playing games and progress from there, that's fine. But you don't see Webster's retelling the history of WWII when defining what a blitzkrieg is.

Take a shot at the question or gtfo.

First, you are assuming that you need to define something in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions to understand it properly. That is false and leads to an infinite regress, because to analyse something by means of a definition you need to reduce it to simpler components. Some of these components will be primitive, they can’t be defined. Secondly, you can improve your understanding of the nature of something by presenting its characteristics. This will not work with cRPGs alone because its nature is too controversial, but will work with cRPGs if we use PnP as a reference. With PnP is easier to list its characteristics because we have a consensus about things that fall under the concept. It is still not an easy job by any standards, but it is better than defining a genre using games that shouldn’t be classified together and have practically nothing in common. Thirdly, you should make a different thread about PnP entitled: what is the nature of a role-playing game?

 

[The Fox Bard]

I really don't think there is a better place to ask than here( and I hope I am in the right subforum).
I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but it is something that often catches my attention in discussions.

Some people claim, for example, that Bloodborne is not a RPG. Others say that Fallout 4 is not a RPG, or that it is a really bad one. And that happens to a lot of games, but surprisingly, no one points out exactly why.

Some will say "because no branching story"
- Is Heavy Rain a RPG?

Some will say "because no character creation"
- So Final Fantasy or Persona can't be considered a RPG?

Some will say "because no experience points"
- Is the new Tomb Raider a RPG?

And it goes on. But what makes a game a "Role Playing Game"?
Do we actually have a game we can call "a true roleplaying experience", or is that impossible? Say, impossible because there is no way a computer game can actually simulate all the craziness that can happen in a Tabletop RPG?

So, do we only have games that have more or less RPG elements included in their design? If I add a single RPG element to my game, can I call it a "RPG game"?

Sorry for bad english guys.