What is role-playing?

[Hory]

Three paragraphs aren't an article.

Anyway, I'd say Monkey Island is as least as much a RPG as Diablo is, only on the other side of the spectrum.
In fact, the more I think about it, the less reasons I can find for Moneky Island not being a RPG.

 

[Human Shield]

Which tactical choices that you make in a turn based game are you not making in one that's real time? The only difference is the time you are given to plan and the players ability to put their plan into action. You don't loose much tactically by going to real time but you gain elements like fog of war and panic (which, if anything, makes real time a more realistic simulation).

This is completely ignorant.

By virtue of limited time requires options to be more limited. And relying on player panic to simulate veteran commandos acting professionally is the worst type of immersion fetishism; action mechanics aren't going to make something more of an RPG just closer to an action game. RPGs can get people excited due to system and rule design and wanting to find out what happens, not timed challenges or outcome based on player reflexes. The real world provides more options then could ever be provided in a real-time environment with a mouse and keyboard (and why do TB games not have fog of war all of a sudden?).

The whole damn point is to play character with skills you don't have. Would a USB door lock attachment that you have to pick yourself make you feel like your in the game with real pressure? RPGs aren't about that, they aren't focused immersion.

 

[Xi]

On your Article:

In my eyes, a role-playing game is, first and foremost, a story.

Most games have a story, therefore I do not believe it is important when defining role-playing. What is important, however, is the ability to interact and change/affect the story. This is why I have moved to the concept of "Branching Stories" because it accomplishes this, and is also not a feature you'll see in 99% of games in existence. It's exclusively a role-play element because now you have a way to affect the story. Even if it's just added linear paths, the result is far more impressive, and when implementing branching stories, the developer can have branches within branches creating an exponentially larger more interesting interaction. Add to this interweaving areas of the branches, giving the character times to return to specific aspects of an important choices, and you've got a pretty extreme narrative with a lot of character interaction. That's huge for role-playing and it's difficult for me to think of a single game that even does this. It's something that originated in PnP, where the GM could easily lead the story in infinite directions depending on the character choices - something video games struggle to do, that hasn't shown up on the simulated side yet.

But a RPG is also a game, which makes it different from stories found on books or movies, and it is the player’s ability to interact with the story that makes it a game. However, a role-playing game is something more than a simple interactive story, as it’s not the story that must allow for the player’s interaction, but, on the contrary, the player’s interaction with the other characters of the story that must create the story itself.

I agree with what you're saying here, but I believe it goes beyond this and interacting with the story is important and you do this through the NPC's, etc. I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say with this: "However, a role-playing game is something more than a simple interactive story" because this is exactly what you are defining. This I also believe is unique to role-playing. Interactive stories(Branching Stories as I call them), are important, and I consider them to be genre defining.

All things said, it is wrong to consider a game as a RPG just because it allows for player interaction in the story (be it in the long or short run).

I disagree, I think it's a defining feature. Also, like I said above, it's not something any action game, RTS, fighting, FPS, etc has really done before. It's unique to a role-play experience. I think so anyway.

edit:
Some of us get confused, myself included, in the terminology we use to get our points across. There are multiple ways to say similar things, and this often leads to misunderstanding one another. For instance, a "Branching Story" could also be considered an "Interactive Story." The difference, I think, is the fact that saying "Branching Story" indicates how one would implement an interactive story. It's done through having multiple branching directions based on character choice. Pretty much the same thing, just different terminology. Also, C&C might sound similar to branching, but I think they differ enough. Also, they kind of play off of each other. Having a branching story requires C&C, but the level and affect of C&C don't always have to affect the story, so they are different.

 

[Jasede]

Are you guys STILL discussing "What is an RPG"?

-.-

srsly

 

[Morbus]

Progression to me is exploration, story/quest, gear, and stats. The current methods we see in games such as leveling and stat development may not be the be-all, end-all solution, but I think they are important even if there is a better way to implement them. Plus it's rewarding, though I think most RPGs focus on this too much. This usually gives the player a sense of only wanting to progress the character as the game promotes it so much. These games usually turn into a grind fest where the game is mostly a focus on progression of stats. (Diablo being a prime example, it was a Rogue-like progression game - which was Ok, but not entirely RPG. Also, most MMOs in existence suffers from this too.)

My thoughts are exactly the same.

Edit: I'm being pretty vague, I know, but if you're not sure what I mean explain yourself and I'll see if I can narrow it and define it better for you. Maybe it won't look so good beneath a microscope.

No, I understand you quite well. I didn't know what you meant at first but now I see. It's just that saying role-playing is a branching storyline is restrictive. You get a branching storyline in many many games which are not RPGs. Jedi Academy comes to mind. You have a plot turn where you can choose, and no matter how you look at it, that is NOT roleplaying. As I say in the article, a branching storyline is just that, a branching storyline. It's a storyline that allows the player to choose. A ture RPG, IMO, is that which creates itstoryline upon players' choices (among other things). There's a big difference. But I know what you mean, and I agree, to a degree. Implementing things like these is tough, and we probably don't have the technology necessary to create a true role-playing computer game, but that doesn't mean we can't theorize.

Sure. You act and interact and that progresses the story. I know what you meant, of course. You meant choices and all that goodness, but your definition wasn't clear on that part. We have several "what's an RPG" threads in the Monkey thread. They are an excellent source of well presented and different opinions. Take a look and finish the article.

I'm not changing that one. I'm probably going to do a part 2 though, after I read some more. Thanks for the advice C:

Your writing is fine. The only problem with the article is it's very, very short. 3,000 words should be your average when it comes to shaping your thoughts into articles. Old man Saint preferred 5,000 words, but I lacked his skills and favored a 2,500-3,500 range.

Well, I usually don't like such small pieces, but yeah, it's very small. Not that it's much different from some articles I've seen in some other sites and some magazines even... As I said, it's not the end-all be-all thing, and I'll probably go for a second, more extensive round. In fact, I have some things written down, but they are overly complex IMO and I didn't think it'd be good to publish them as they are. I'm probably reviewing them, and doing an extensive article about RPG's in general, not only what they are... Don't know, gotta find some time to think and write and read first

 

[Squeek]

More than anything else, RPG is about storytelling. But unlike other genre where stories are told to you or shown to you, RPG casts you in the role of a character within a story. It's implied that your participation will make a difference, somehow, that your decisions will effect the story and change the way it unfolds.

 

[Morbus]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say with this: "However, a role-playing game is something more than a simple interactive story" because this is exactly what you are defining. This I also believe is unique to role-playing. Interactive stories(Branching Stories as I call them), are important, and I consider them to be genre defining.

They can't be, that's what I was trying to say (and obviously failed...). If interactive stories were genre defining, Jedi Academy would be a RPG, or STALKER, or any other random game out there with some plot turn where you get to choose. It's a story. It's interactive. It isn't enough. The story must be built upon player's actions and choices, and NOT simply allow for the player to interact with it. Look at pnp. Is the story interactive? Is it enough to say pnp rpg stories are interactive? You create them on the go if need be. That's my point.

Are you guys STILL discussing "What is an RPG"?

-.-

srsly

C'mon, the little guy next door doesn't know what it is, so I'm trying to help him...

 

[Hory]

What is important, however, is the ability to interact and change/affect the story.

Well, changing or affecting the story might not even be necessary. I can imagine a RPG where the player is powerless to change a situation, but with plenty of involvement and drama in the act of trying itself.

A story is not a requirement either. You could role-play a completely banal situation based on the same rules and mechanisms you would role-play saving the world.

More than anything else, RPG is about storytelling. But unlike other genre where stories are told to you or shown to you, RPG casts you in the role of a character within a story. It's implied that your participation will make a difference, somehow, that your decisions will effect the story and change the way it unfolds.

So, is a Choose Your Own Adventure book a RPG?

 

[Morbus]

Well, changing or affecting the story might not even be necessary. I can imagine a RPG where the player is powerless to change a situation, but with plenty of involvement and drama in the act of trying itself.

You may not be able to change the big things in the story, but as long as you make a damn difference in the gameworld, you do change something, and you do play a role. Just like in reel lyphe.

A story is not a requirement either. You could role-play a completely banal situation based on the same rules and mechanisms you would role-play saving the world.

ORLY? And what would happen then? Wouldn't you be CREATING a story? A story always appear, and the role-playing is that story, that you create.

 

[Hory]

Well, changing or affecting the story might not even be necessary. I can imagine a RPG where the player is powerless to change a situation, but with plenty of involvement and drama in the act of trying itself.

You may not be able to change the big things in the story, but as long as you make a damn difference in the gameworld, you do change something, and you do play a role. Just like in reel lyphe.

What if you wouldn't be able to change little things either? What if you couldn't convince any of the characters to change? What if when you tried to move an object there would be a justified force/character that pushed it back? What if you couldn't even kill yourself? It's irrelevant, as long as you can try.

A story is not a requirement either. You could role-play a completely banal situation based on the same rules and mechanisms you would role-play saving the world.

ORLY? And what would happen then? Wouldn't you be CREATING a story? A story always appear, and the role-playing is that story, that you create.

No you wouldn't, you would be creating a sketch. "You're a boy selling newspapers." That's not a story.

 

[Top Hat]

Are you guys STILL discussing "What is an RPG"?

-.-

srsly

Are you STILL whining "in every thread"?

-.-

srsly

---

In actual seriousness, I think that the problem is due to the fact that broad classifications don't always work. It's the same with "fantasy" - technically, steampunk is "fantasy", but chances are it's not the first thing that you might think of if the word is used.

Definitions are also going to change as time passes: consider the word "gay". Since marketing departments are applying the "RPG" category to a wider range of games, there's a diffusion effect.

The whole idea of classifying games into categories is kind of limiting. It's probably a better idea to compare games with other games using some kind of feature metric. That way, if you like a game you can see what other games are "close" to it, and probably have a higher chance of finding one you'll like.

 

[Xi]

Edit: I'm being pretty vague, I know, but if you're not sure what I mean explain yourself and I'll see if I can narrow it and define it better for you. Maybe it won't look so good beneath a microscope.

No, I understand you quite well. I didn't know what you meant at first but now I see. It's just that saying role-playing is a branching storyline is restrictive. You get a branching storyline in many many games which are not RPGs. Jedi Academy comes to mind. You have a plot turn where you can choose, and no matter how you look at it, that is NOT roleplaying. As I say in the article, a branching storyline is just that, a branching storyline. It's a storyline that allows the player to choose. A ture RPG, IMO, is that which creates itstoryline upon players' choices (among other things). There's a big difference. But I know what you mean, and I agree, to a degree. Implementing things like these is tough, and we probably don't have the technology necessary to create a true role-playing computer game, but that doesn't mean we can't theorize.

Exactly, it's the method of implementation that is lacking. How do we properly recreate infinite possibility within a story?(Or without a story) This is what I call branching stories because it is an attempt to achieve this to a much smaller effect. Also, I would argue that Jedi Academy is offering a role-play choice, but that doesn't mean we need to define it as an RPG. That's a very weak implementation because it's only a single branching choice.(Does it even have multiple different endings - I think this is important and is also part of my Branching stories idea?) The method that I'm interested in has that type of interactivity with the story at multiple different places(maybe even hundreds), where the outcomes will often lead to entirely different endings. Also, these endings don't have to end the main overall story, just a portion of the story. Ultimately the game can branch off in numerous directions, some even leading away from the main story for a time, and then the character returns to a central theme, which also has indefinite branches with completely different outcomes too. Yes, it's complicated, I like to think of it as a maze of interconnected directions, but it can be done.

They can't be, that's what I was trying to say (and obviously failed...). If interactive stories were genre defining, Jedi Academy would be a RPG, or STALKER, or any other random game out there with some plot turn where you get to choose. It's a story. It's interactive. It isn't enough. The story must be built upon player's actions and choices, and NOT simply allow for the player to interact with it. Look at pnp. Is the story interactive? Is it enough to say pnp rpg stories are interactive? You create them on the go if need be. That's my point.

I see what you're getting at, but again I feel that those games are offering a role-play choice. It doesn't mean that those choices are enough to relabel the games, but it's still role-playing because you affect the story.

Creating a story on the fly would be optimal, but how can we recreate that? Given the current medium, it makes more sense to define a story, and then create as much interactivity with that story so that the affect the player has within it alters the course of the story dramatically enough to produce different endings and outcomes. I can't emphasize this enough, I believe that this is role-playing and I also agree that the implementation is just a limitation of the medium. Recreating infinite story possibility, where the character drives a previously uncreated story in any random direction they choose, just isn't possible. The best way to achieve this is through a branching story where we can at least interact with and affect the story in ways that are meaningful for the character we are playing. That is role-playing.

Well, changing or affecting the story might not even be necessary. I can imagine a RPG where the player is powerless to change a situation, but with plenty of involvement and drama in the act of trying itself.

Oh definitely. I'm not trying to restrict how the game works, just that I think "Interactive Stories" are a plus when it comes to role-playing. The character's intent isn't always going to guarantee a result. Certain aspects can appear very open-ended but really be linear and straightforward. Still, I think branching stories where the player can affect the outcome in most cases is important and even genre defining.

A story is not a requirement either. You could role-play a completely banal situation based on the same rules and mechanisms you would role-play saving the world.

I think this is interesting, but until the player can create a story on the fly, I don't see how this would work. I think this idea would end up like a Rogue-like where progression is foremost the important concept. Maybe there is no main story either, just tiny quests and things to do, but no overall "save the world" or do something spectacular kind of thing. Just simple game interactions without a theme. /shrug Sounds interesting, but I don't think it would work as well as a pre-configured story that allows for insanely multi-directional branches that lead to odd, but interesting, endings. The game mechanics can be interesting enough by themselves, but I don't know if I would consider the mechanics alone to be the most important aspects, albeit pretty important though.


One last thing, a Branching Story doesn't have to be a Novel. It can be a shit load of simple interactions that change the course of the game. There doesn't need to be a save the world theme, or a do anything theme. The story could be as simple as starting off as a janitor and working your way to the top of a company. It's up to your character to figure out how to do this, and the game offers numerous different ways to accomplish it, all with different varying results of success. Hell, you might even be able to sabotage the company and collect some type of payment from a different competitor. The concept is endless. We don't need dungeons and dragons, just insane interactivity where we make choices based on our characters traits. Anyway, I'm not sure if what I'm saying is entirely clear, but there aren't any limitations. It's just a design concept that ensures the ability to make role-play choices. Any scenario, any world, any time in history, whatever. There doesn't need to be a fleshed out novel working it's magic in the background. It can be as simple as you want - we've already saved mankind to the extent that I'd personally like to see the bastards suffer. What about being the bad guy and working toward a way to accomplish what this side wants? Bah, now it sounds good vs evil, but that's not even the point.

Edit: Bah, made a shit-load of different edits and fixed a few things.

 

[Hory]

I was reading the dictionary last night, as usual, and I had just gotten to V-letter words. Then, I realised what the most important element of a RPG is: veridicality.
If the role-playing of a character is veridical, all necessary sub-elements will emerge.

1) A broad spectrum of possible actions is veridical.
Speaking with enemies, not only killing them (FPS) is veridical. Having an accident, not just driving a car (NFS) is veridical. Having your wife upset because of the female fans that come with football fame is veridical; just playing the field (FIFA) isn't.

When the spectrum of actions isn't broad, the game becomes just an "activity simulator", not a role-playing game.

2) With veridicality comes depth. When did you last speak with someone, saying only "Rumors" / "Quests" / "Barter" / "Goodbye"? In a RPG, it is expected that at least some types of actions will have depth (usually it's combat and combat-related ones).

3) Choices, consequences, branching? What can be more realistic? You have these in real-life. If you were to play another life, you'd need to have them in it as well. I think that's why we like them so much on the Codex. It makes the experience feel genuine.

 

[Jasede]

Edit: I just saw Top Hat's reply and decided not to bother. Enjoy your wallowing in mediocre definitions in a debate that is as meaningless as it is mind-boggingly stupid.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Here's ANOTHER GREAT WAR "What is an RPG"...

There will be casualties, a lot of them.


EDIT: Really Jesede? The last time I check your post was:

For the last damn time.

An RPG does not need choices or consequences or even dialogue or NPCs to talk to. All this is fluff that makes an RPG more likable to the Codex, but does not-

No. No, I am not starting this again, it has been said countless of times already and nobody should care what the word RPG means anyway; games should be rated on the merit of the game, not how well it fits the bondage of some genre title.

You enjoy your fluffy honey definitons that make Wizardry and Ultima and Dungeon Master and pretty much most RPGs non-RPGs.

 

[Morbus]

What if you wouldn't be able to change little things either? What if you couldn't convince any of the characters to change? What if when you tried to move an object there would be a justified force/character that pushed it back? What if you couldn't even kill yourself? It's irrelevant, as long as you can try.

Indeed. But you have to be able to try INgame, not like in oblivion where you can try all you can't but you can't change shit.

No you wouldn't, you would be creating a sketch. "You're a boy selling newspapers." That's not a story.

Technically it is. And we're talking technically here. We're defining something, so, it is a story. Any chain of events is a story. A boy selling newspapers that goes first this street and then that one is a story, kind of a story like those you tell 5 year old kids, but a story no matter what.

Exactly, it's the method of implementation that is lacking. How do we properly recreate infinite possibility within a story?(Or without a story) This is what I call branching stories because it is an attempt to achieve this to a much smaller effect.

It's an attempt, yes, and the better the attempt the closer we are to reaching the state of a true RPG, but I'm one of those guys that says no CRPG is a true role-playing game. Of course arguing about that in this case is meaningless, as long as we understand eachother I think it's more a matter of semantics than anything else.

Also, I would argue that Jedi Academy is offering a role-play choice, but that doesn't mean we need to define it as an RPG. That's a very weak implementation because it's only a single branching choice.(Does it even have multiple different endings - I think this is important and is also part of my Branching stories idea?)

It does have two endings. Still, you can't define something based on "how much" it is or does something. It's a common rule for definitions. Unless you're going for a quantic definition, where something is something when it reaches a certain number of things. I mean, the water boils at 100ºC, and if it's 99ºC it doesn't boil. The thing is, ultimately, the definition is that the water boils when it reaches its boiling point (or whatever it's called). You can't say it's a RPG if it has a certain number of "role-playing oppurtunities" because then who would decide how many "role-playing oppurtunities" would have game have to have in order to be considered a RPG? On the other hand, how the hell could you consider something like that a valid definiton? There'd have to be qualitative differences between RPGs and other genres, no simple common quantitative differences, because that' CAN'T be genre defining. See what I mean? (I'm sorry, I not really sure if I'm ever clear enough)

he method that I'm interested in has that type of interactivity with the story at multiple different places(maybe even hundreds), where the outcomes will often lead to entirely different endings. Also, these endings don't have to end the main overall story, just a portion of the story. Ultimately the game can branch off in numerous directions, some even leading away from the main story for a time, and then the character returns to a central theme, which also has indefinite branches with completely different outcomes too. Yes, it's complicated, I like to think of it as a maze of interconnected directions, but it can be done.

That's what I'm saying, that is just a branching storyline. You'd have predefined endings, and you'd only choose. In order to be a RPG, the game would have to build a story upon the choices, not the other way around. It's not just hard to implement. I believe it's simply impossible to implement with the common CRPG mechanics. For instance, the difference between Fallout's/Arcanum's ending and other CRPG endings. Fallout's is closer to a real RPG ending, because it is almost like procedurally build upon choices and consequences. I know it's not as cinematic and as nice to see (kewl?) as a common ending, but theorically it's much much better.

I see what you're getting at, but again I feel that those games are offering a role-play choice. It doesn't mean that those choices are enough to relabel the games, but it's still role-playing because you affect the story.

You don't affect the story, you just choose what side to take. Design wise, I mean. It's like saying that you affect the story of need for speed depending on which care you choose. You do affect the story, in a sense, but it's so ridiculously petty it can't be considered affecting, it's just a choice the devs chose to give you. I'm not too sure of this though, maybe I'm seeing the thing from the wrong side. Maybe choices in a story is role-playing, but I can't figure out how that can be :\

Creating a story on the fly would be optimal, but how can we recreate that?

Sims does it. Of course you don't have dialog (true dialog anyway) and a lot of other things (like combat and stuff) but it does create a story on the fly... I can't see how that may affect CRPG design though... But Will Wright sure proved something more can be done with the right mechanics...

Given the current medium, it makes more sense to define a story, and then create as much interactivity with that story so that the affect the player has within it alters the course of the story dramatically enough to produce different endings and outcomes. I can't emphasize this enough, I believe that this is role-playing and I also agree that the implementation is just a limitation of the medium.

I see, but what if that limitation is just genre restricting and you can't have true role-play on computerized platforms? Is is simply not a possibility? Because defining what a CRPG is, for me, is a dead issue, no more arguing over that one.

Recreating infinite story possibility, where the character drives a previously uncreated story in any random direction they choose, just isn't possible.

With today's techniques and mechanics, and technology, it isn't, but what if there is a way and we're just not seeing it. From a design stand-point, I see it as an interesting challange.

The best way to achieve this is through a branching story where we can at least interact with and affect the story in ways that are meaningful for the character we are playing. That is role-playing.

That is today's computer role-playing, yes...

 

[Jasede]

Yes, Whiskey Wolf. I decided it isn't worth it. We've been through this. Only about, oh, 79 times by now.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Yes, Whiskey Wolf. I decided it isn't worth it. We've been through this. Only about, oh, 79 times by now.

So this your nr 80. Hurry! Let's celebrate!

 

[Elhoim]

Yes, Whiskey Wolf. I decided it isn't worth it. We've been through this. Only about, oh, 79 times by now.

What took you so long? Besides, new guys want to try to discover their own definition, instead of following the footsteps of our forefathers. They want to build their own way, their own path.

The important thing it's not arriving at the definition, but the process of reaching there what matters. They are using their minds, exercising analisis and critical thought of each others post. What does it matter if it has already been discussed to death? And perhaps something new or interesting could come out of this.

Besides, it's the RPGCodex, what should they be talking about? Why don't you propose something that hasn't been discussed before, if that's what you want?

Sorry for highjacking the thread guys, please continue with your discussion.

 

[Jasede]

Heh. Why don't you, Elhoim? For everything I can think of, there already was a discussion (and a good one).

I must be getting old.

Anyway, commence discussion then, but know that you do not have a good definiton of RPG if it does not encompass Fallout AND Dungeon Master (no choices & consequences, no dialogue, no party interaction, no NPCs to speak of...).

 

[pkt-zer0]

All-encompassing RPG definition: character skill over player skill. And from there you branch off into subgenres, depending on which aspects of interaction are focused on.

I'm fairly sure this is generic enough to fit anything you'd think of as an RPG, but does anything fit that isn't one?

 

[Joe Krow]

By virtue of limited time requires options to be more limited.

Why?

And relying on player panic to simulate veteran commandos acting professionally is the worst type of immersion fetishism

So time pressure and fog of war are not issues for "veteran commandos?"

action mechanics aren't going to make something more of an RPG just closer to an action game.

HINT: Both simulate action

RPGs can get people excited due to system and rule design and wanting to find out what happens, not timed challenges or outcome based on player reflexes.

Outcomes can still be stat dependant in real time and it has no effect at all on how the plot develops.

The real world provides more options then could ever be provided in a real-time environment with a mouse and keyboard

This holds true for any computer game, no?

(and why do TB games not have fog of war all of a sudden?).

Because you are given time to survey that your character does not have. Hiding enemies is hardly equivalent.

The whole damn point is to play character with skills you don't have. Would a USB door lock attachment that you have to pick yourself make you feel like your in the game with real pressure? RPGs aren't about that, they aren't focused immersion.

I don't disagree with that. However, the question is, which better simulates combat and makes for entertaining game play: the player making tactical decisions for his character in real time or with artificial pauses after every step? The computer is capable of crunching all the numbers necessary to let it be the characters actions and not your own. Turn based combat is a hold over from table top games. Why is it a requirement for crpgs?

 

[Xi]

That's what I'm saying, that is just a branching storyline. You'd have predefined endings, and you'd only choose. In order to be a RPG, the game would have to build a story upon the choices, not the other way around. It's not just hard to implement. I believe it's simply impossible to implement with the common CRPG mechanics. For instance, the difference between Fallout's/Arcanum's ending and other CRPG endings. Fallout's is closer to a real RPG ending, because it is almost like procedurally build upon choices and consequences. I know it's not as cinematic and as nice to see (kewl?) as a common ending, but theorically it's much much better.

Well, I can understand what you mean. Most games that have used this idea have done a piss-poor job of it by only offering a single, and very minor, story choice that leads to similar ends. You're correct when you say predefined endings, but I think the main point is that you wouldn't be choosing an ending if the branches were complex enough, and if there were enough of them, because it would be too difficult. Of course if you played the game enough you might start to remember what certain choices lead too, but that's not the point. If the game can offer hundreds of different branching choices, I think we would be closer to achieving the impossible. We would be simulating an interactive story much like a GM does in a table top environment. Yes, it's far more limited, but it is a step in the right direction.

So yeah, it is just predefined paths, but the paths interconnect and interweave with one another, and there's hundreds of them. This means that you're not choosing an ending, just making choices in the moment of which lead down different predefined, yet unknown to the player, endings. I think it's a pinnacle of role-playing "choice within a story." Other wise, we could just say the story doesn't matter, and it truly doesn't in a linear unbranched story, because you're not making choices, you're just viewing a story without any affect. Which is hardly role-playing, and is just there for the aesthetic value. Branching stories just seems like the next logical step, and we've hardly seen it implemented. Your examples are interesting, but they aren't quite what I mean when I say branching stories. The choices are role-playish, but they aren't affecting anything but the players imagination. Well, for the most part that's true anyway. The difference being that in a branching story, your choices have a real affect on the next step within the story. Your second play through, with a different character, may be entirely different. Add, Choice/Consequence, Progression, and Bam! you have a worthy RPG.

The more I think of this idea the more it sounds like a Choose your own adventure story. Do you guys remember those books? If you enter the cavern of doom, goto page 200, if you decide to explore outside more, goto page 125. Lol, similar idea, but still not entirely the same. Maybe it will help paint a better picture though.

All-encompassing RPG definition: character skill over player skill. And from there you branch off into subgenres, depending on which aspects of interaction are focused on.

I'm fairly sure this is generic enough to fit anything you'd think of as an RPG, but does anything fit that isn't one?

If all an RPG is is not being in control of your character, then what is the point? I don't think what you're saying is truly specific to role-playing as much as it is to game design. I would argue that it's important for the character's traits to be mostly determinate of the outcome in an RPG, but the player must also have some affect on the outcome, or what's the point? It's impossible to separate player skill and character skill anyway. They inevitably combine at some point and the player skill will be the prominent factor in determining many different outcomes.(This is the game you're playing. It's the balance of interactivity.) So, I don't think having less control is really the point. It's more of a video game design element that will depend on the mechanics of the game, but that does not mean that the mechanics of an RPG, because it's an RPG, make your analogy true. It's, I believe, a separate issue. Semantics.

 

[Keldorn]

"Roleplaying : Choosing and then developing & playing your own unique character, while choosing and pursuing your own uniquely chosen path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld, based on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."


-Keldorn The Paladin

 

[Koby]

"Roleplaying : Choosing and then developing & playing your own unique character, while choosing and pursuing your own uniquely chosen path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld, based on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."

-Keldorn The Paladin

How about this - "Choosing and then developing & playing your own unique character [pause, good start], while choosing and pursuing your character own uniquely chosen path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld, based on your character own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."

Once you create this "unique character" it is from now on, by definition the character's choices, path, goals and agendas.

The whole damn point is to play character with skills you don't have.

In the sense that the character ability are not effected by the player ability - couldn't agree more, the player decides, the character perform!