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.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.I don't owe you a thing. Especially after your rudeness to me. Go fuck yourself.
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.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.
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.the game might have been as good as it is without combat but it wouldn't have been an rpg.
Suit yourself.over and out.
Your response to my first post was total class though, real gentelman's way of conducting a respectful discourse.I don't owe you a thing. Especially after your rudeness to me. Go fuck yourself.
yeah, what you've played really proves me wrong...
i just said a game without combat is not an rpg.
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.I replied to your post with a dismissive one-liner.
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.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?
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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?
You mean like elements?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.a cRPG is the result of an attempt to implement a RPG in videogames
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.