Why the big divide between roleplaying and acting?

mondblut · Dec 7, 2008

Azrael the cat said:
Of course you forgot to mention:
- even the DnD system has changed dramatically since then, with far greater scope for non-combat mechanics;
- other PnP systems exist which do place a far greater emphasis on roleplaying

That sounds hauntingly similar to how the bethsoft fanbois justify why the "RPGs" of today have very little in common to the RPGs of yesteryear. Far greater emphasis on immershun, you know. RPGs changed dramatically n stuff.

Going up to a group of LARPers to tell them that 'waaaaa!!! you aren't playing like Gygax intended!!!!' is a tad pathetic.

What about when a group of LARPers comes into *my* game and tries to warp it to their liking?

You know that wierd thing....'fun'? If for some reason that stirs some innate embarassment within you that causes you to have a cry about someone having fun doing something that you don't have fun doing, well the patheticness is at your end and not theirs....

To which I'll quote:

oldschool said:
If someone was making CRPGs that I liked, I would have no problem with the games that Bethesda, Bioware, Obsidian, & etc make. They could make lame choose-your-own-dialogue stories with no gameplay all the live long day for all I would care.

Since nobody is making good CRPGs anymore, I tend to be a bit cranky about what is being offered as a substitue.

Couldn't say better.

DraQ · Dec 7, 2008

PnPs (and cRPGs) becoming more than just combat oriented hackfest is a good trend.

Same as the trend thanks to which not every single FPS today is a fucking Doom clone.

Hory · Dec 7, 2008

mondblut said:
There is NO "roleplaying" in this book:

Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames.

That image has popped up before, and I agree with it. D&D is definitely not the authority in what is or isn't a RPG. As such, a "true RPG" doesn't need be as oriented towards tactical combat as D&D was.

That sounds hauntingly similar to how the bethsoft fanbois justify why the "RPGs" of today have very little in common to the RPGs of yesteryear. Far greater emphasis on immershun, you know. RPGs changed dramatically n stuff.

The films of today have very little in common with those of yesteryear too, and they're better for it. Only a fool claims that the first instance of a recreational form is and will remain the best one. The same for immersion. I don't think anyone would dislike more of it alone. Problem is, it now often comes with negative effects.

DraQ · Dec 7, 2008

Hory said:
The films of today have very little in common with those of yesteryear too, and they're better for it. Only a fool claims that the first instance of a recreational form is and will remain the best one. The same for immersion. I don't think anyone would dislike more of it alone. Problem is, it now often comes with negative effects.

:declineofthecodex: would have been more concise.

Unradscorpion · Dec 7, 2008

Don't see how this relates to CRPGs, you can't play act with a computer, for something like that you should play PnPs.
DnD, which is basis for the first CRPGS(Dungeon '75) was inspired by historical wargames that were your geek's past time back in Gygax's time.

The closest thing to this you can do in CRPGs is allowing the player to flesh out his character through situations in the gameworld and I'm pretty sure we all agree that is awesome.

Hory · Dec 7, 2008

Unradscorpion said:
Don't see how this relates to CRPGs, you can't play act with a computer, for something like that you should play PnPs.

It would be possible if you had either a game powered by advanced artificial intelligence or a full cast of human players for all the game-world characters. I'm working on developing a mix of the two. Indeed, you wouldn't role-play through body language or voice acting, but by writing and decision-making. And I wouldn't be surprised if some time, the future will allow for reliable voice and facial expression recognition.

mondblut · Dec 7, 2008

Hory said:
D&D is definitely not the authority in what is or isn't a RPG.

And who is, a bunch of latecomer kids who wouldn't even touch a PC with a ten feet pole until Windows 95 let the ignorants in? Yeah, *right*.

The films of today have very little in common with those of yesteryear too, and they're better for it. Only a fool claims that the first instance of a recreational form is and will remain the best one.

The films of today have helluva lot in common with those of yesterday. They got sound and color and better props, and that's all. The entertainment is still the same. Unless you imply some anime hentai shit. Then I would see the analogy, although hardly in favor of "films of today".

A Goldbox series game made in 3d with shaders and stuff would also be "better for it" than the original, I guess. An FPS with choose-your-own-dialogue thrown in would be not.

The same for immersion. I don't think anyone would dislike more of it alone. Problem is, it now often comes with negative effects.

Immershun alone, that's exactly what RPGs are led into.

It would be possible if you had either a game powered by advanced artificial intelligence...

I would like some of these drugs too.

...or a full cast of human players for all the game-world characters.

And that's exactly what I suggest: dear Sophisticated Role-Players, there are hundreds of MMORPGs desperately needing your Acting Talents. There, you can Talk In Character to your heart's desire. Please leave our games alone.

Disconnected · Dec 7, 2008

mondblut said:
And that's exactly what I suggest: dear Sophisticated Role-Players, there are hundreds of MMORPGs desperately needing your Acting Talents. There, you can Talk In Character to your heart's desire. Please leave our games alone.

Hehe..

I don't see how there can be any question a game like Torment is a cRPG, nor do I think it's in any way bad to have cRPGs that focus solely on storytelling, though I agree it's skirting adventure game territory. The problem, I think, is that cRPGs of late don't have a whole lot in common with RPGs. I'd love to have a couple of 2008 PORs and PS:Ts, but there aren't any.

As for the Freeform RPing, there's not only a ton of MMOs with servers exclusively for that, it isn't possible to do in a single player game. Perhaps one day there'll be AIs capable of emulating humans to the degree you won't need more than 1 human player, but even then it arguably won't be a single player game. And I'm guessing those AIs would demand an hourly wage. I would.

DraQ · Dec 7, 2008

mondblut said:
The films of today have helluva lot in common with those of yesterday.

You sir are a GIGANTIC FAGGOT.

Hory · Dec 7, 2008

mondblut said:
And who is, a bunch of latecomer kids who wouldn't even touch a PC with a ten feet pole until Windows 95 let the ignorants in? Yeah, *right*.

Objective semantic analysis, for one. Is it a structured activity undertaken for enjoyment based on rules and objectives? Then it's a game. Is the participants' adoption and acting out of the role of characters a defining part? Then it's a role-playing game.

The films of today have helluva lot in common with those of yesterday. They got sound and color and better props, and that's all. The entertainment is still the same.

And RPGs of today have social interaction and better narratives, that's all. The mechanics are the same.

A Goldbox series game made in 3d with shaders and stuff would also be "better for it" than the original, I guess. An FPS with choose-your-own-dialogue thrown in would be not.

What's better is just a matter of opinion, but I would say that a game doesn't become worse when a good story is added to the gameplay elements. The perfect example: the way Another World correlated most gameplay with a narrative justification, becoming one of the greatest and most memorable platformers.

Immershun alone, that's exactly what RPGs are led into.

I was talking about only adding immersive (this isn't a word?) features to an existing product.

And that's exactly what I suggest: dear Sophisticated Role-Players, there are hundreds of MMORPGs desperately needing your Acting Talents. There, you can Talk In Character to your heart's desire. Please leave our games alone.

That's ironic, considering that the most popular MMORPGs are about your beloved "Combat & Calculations". Why don't you play those and leave our (?) games alone.

bhlaab · Dec 9, 2008

Uh, because acting is performance art and larping is a bunch of fat dudes playing pretend?

Jaime Lannister · Dec 9, 2008

And again, mondblut, I ask what problem you'd have with a game with PS:T's story and dialog, and ToEE's combat.

We all like games with good combat, and good story and dialog, and good C&C. Stop being so 1-dimensional.

mondblut · Dec 9, 2008

Hory said:
Objective semantic analysis, for one. Is it a structured activity undertaken for enjoyment based on rules and objectives? Then it's a game. Is the participants' adoption and acting out of the role of characters a defining part? Then it's a role-playing game.

Like Halo?

And RPGs of today have social interaction and better narratives, that's all. The mechanics are the same.

ORLY? Last time I checked, RPGs of today tend to be exclusively realtime and feature only a barebone set of stats which hardly influence anything comparing to player's skill. In late 80s a game like Gothic or FO3 would be looked at as an arcadish spinoff, not an RPG proper.

What's better is just a matter of opinion, but I would say that a game doesn't become worse when a good story is added to the gameplay elements.

As long as said story doesn't start stomping over the grounds where freedom and good gameplay should be. Which somehow happens *every* time.

I was talking about only adding immersive (this isn't a word?) features to an existing product.

Duh, but numbers and turn-based break immershun, don't they?

That's ironic, considering that the most popular MMORPGs are about your beloved "Combat & Calculations". Why don't you play those and leave our (?) games alone.

I am not interested in playing with other people. Don't have Acting Talents itching to show off. In other words, computer adaptations of AD&D sessions were created exactly for individuals like me.

mondblut · Dec 9, 2008

Jaime Lannister said:
And again, mondblut, I ask what problem you'd have with a game with PS:T's story and dialog, and ToEE's combat.

None, except that I don't know of said game to exist. And after almost 30 years of the genre's existence, I tend to think there must be a good reason for that.

Jaime Lannister · Dec 9, 2008

I'd say that Fallout, Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate 2, and NWN 2: MotB are all good compromises between the two. None of them have the combat of ToEE, and none of them have the story of PS:T, but they're all enjoyable games with good story, dialog, and combat. Take the stick out of your ass.

"RPGs of today tend to be exclusively realtime and feature only a barebone set of stats which hardly influence anything comparing to player's skill."

This is not true in any of the games I mentioned. All of them are based on P&P, just not a strict ruleset like TOEE.

mondblut · Dec 9, 2008

Enjoyable games? Yes. Good compromises? Questionable. I strongly disliked the BG combat, and while I haven't played NWN2, I am fairly certain MOTB is even worse in this department. And while FO combat is IMO enjoyable in its own special (

) way, a lot of people hated it for one reason or another (namely, exploitability/stupid enemy AI, no NPC control/stupid friendly AI, no overwatch, no covering, the list goes on and on). All while the storyfags right here complain how much the story of BG2 sucked.

So, to sum it up, each of these games *would* feature a better RPG gameplay with the combat of TOEE.

And with the exception of MOTB, none of them are "RPGs of today". They are all 10+ years old.

Hory · Dec 9, 2008

mondblut said:
And with the exception of MOTB, none of them are "RPGs of today". They are all 10+ years old.

The "RPGs of yesteryear", that you mentioned, aren't from 2007 either. Don't be so picky; the point was the progress made by RPGs until today, as opposed to their state in the more distant past.

mondblut · Dec 9, 2008

"Progress" implies evolution and improvement. I fail to see how the games mentioned are "improved" over Pool of Radiance or Wizardry (other than GUI efficiency or screen resolution). They expanded including more kind of content than RPGs had from original days, all while making compromises - that is, degrading - in core RPG gameplay.

ghostdog · Dec 9, 2008

I'm sure this is all the fault of those perverted Asians, we should definitely kill them all with death, before they inject our pure water with sake and pollute our minds.

DraQ · Dec 9, 2008

ghostdog said:
I'm sure this is all the fault of those perverted Asians, we should definitely kill them all with death, before they inject our pure water with sake and pollute our minds.

Rictus? Is that you?

ghostdog · Dec 9, 2008

You mean SuperVillain Rictus, the most evil super villain of planet Krapton? I wish I was him, but sadly no.

Jaime Lannister · Dec 9, 2008

mondblut said:
"Progress" implies evolution and improvement. I fail to see how the games mentioned are "improved" over Pool of Radiance or Wizardry (other than GUI efficiency or screen resolution). They expanded including more kind of content than RPGs had from original days, all while making compromises - that is, degrading - in core RPG gameplay.

ANY combat surpasses the Final Fantasy-esque blob combat of Wizardry/M&M/etc. (yes I know FF was based on Wizardry, that doesn't make it any better) And Dark Sun improved on the Gold Box games by adding good story, dialog, and C&C, while keeping the combat engine and improving the graphics.

mondblut · Dec 10, 2008

Jaime Lannister said:
ANY combat surpasses the Final Fantasy-esque blob combat of Wizardry/M&M/etc. (yes I know FF was based on Wizardry, that doesn't make it any better)

Wizardry - phased turn-based, a plentitude of various spells which required a lot of thinking to employ timely, limited tactics (formation, hiding), strategic party selection and development.

Final Faggotry - duh, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNzFE8rNPQU

And Dark Sun improved on the Gold Box games by adding good story, dialog, and C&C, while keeping the combat engine and improving the graphics.

Adding story and dialogue (combat and calculations already were there) is not an improvement of an RPG, merely an expansion. But as far as gameplay is concerned, yes, Darksun did improve on goldboxes a bit, although the removal of FP exploration mode may be questioned. And TOEE, in turn, improved over Darksun.

Jaime Lannister · Dec 10, 2008

"phased turn-based, a plentitude of various spells which required a lot of thinking to employ timely, limited tactics (formation, hiding), strategic party selection and development."

With the exception of hiding, all of that is in Final Fantasy 4-10.

"although the removal of FP exploration mode may be questioned"

Why? IMMURSHUN?

oldschool · Dec 10, 2008

Funny thing about evolution. It tends to keep going even when you want it to stop.

So you guys killed off CRPG gameplay. You were a market force that demanded choose-your-own-dialogue adventure games instead, got what you wanted, and redefined the genre in your own image. Still pissed at you about that.

Here's where it gets funny. There is a whole new market force out there, and they could give a diplomatic rats' ass about C&C dialogue. Cinematic immersion FTW, baby! That's the "evolution" of your genre, like it or not. Welcome to the new new definition of RPG.

I'm betting they won't stop "evolving" the genre until they've reduced it to playing dress up with their avatar pre-game, rolling up some arbitrary traits, and then the rest of the "gameplay" involves doing this:

Press here to continue...

I have to admit, that amuses the hell out of me. Gameplay evolution at its finest.

Why the big divide between roleplaying and acting?

Arcane

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane

Arbiter

Erudite

Arcane

Scholar

Arcane

Erudite

Erudite

Arbiter

Arcane

Arcane

Arbiter

Arcane

Erudite

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane

Arbiter

Arcane

Arbiter

Scholar