1133 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

You should most likely move on to a new concept, since playing a game requires intelligence.

you need at least +30 in sarcasm skill to damage me, since I have my +4 internet shield (50% resistance to forum flaming) your attack had no effect

hey, we just roleplayed

[Il Divo]

filetemo wrote...

it's called metagaming. DM strongly avoid this or directly do not allow this. If you know something your character doesn't, you can't use that in-game.If you wanna play a creative bard but yourself are not very creative, the right way is to ask the DM "I do have a stat of 45 in charisma, can I come up with a song that motivates the soldiers?

Irrelevant to my character's personality. If I (the player) am unable to sufficiently fill the role in that character's personality, I would say this is still an instance of player ability impacting character (or role-playing) ability and what role I may take in the game world. It's not all dice rolls. I'm role-playing a wise monk. Unfortunately, I myself am not very wise ergo I may have trouble acting the persona of a wise monk. Just because I get a high bonus on all my sense motive checks does not mean everything I do is character skill.    

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

Some things blur the line between astrophysics and quantum mechanics, for example

but the core base of both things, is...mathematics.

[FedericoV]

filetemo wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
 You can roleplay without levels, classes and even without skills or dices.

in real life cosplay roleplaying yes, in CRPGS no.

Well, it depends. Even in CRPG, you could roleplay with very few and limited skills (let's say 3 or 4) and fixed difficulties for every encounter (no chances: you win or you loose), without classes, inventory and loot. Still, a CRPG, untill it had an interactive story, choices and consequences and a rule system (even if with very simple rules).

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Some things blur the line between astrophysics and quantum mechanics, for example

but the core base of both things, is...mathematics.

And what does that have to do with naming genres?

[filetemo]

Il Divo wrote...

filetemo wrote...

it's called metagaming. DM strongly avoid this or directly do not allow this. If you know something your character doesn't, you can't use that in-game.If you wanna play a creative bard but yourself are not very creative, the right way is to ask the DM "I do have a stat of 45 in charisma, can I come up with a song that motivates the soldiers?

Irrelevant to my character's personality. If I (the player) am unable to sufficiently fill the role in that character's personality, I would say this is still an instance of player ability impacting character (or role-playing) ability and what role I may take in the game world. It's not all dice rolls. I'm role-playing a wise monk. Unfortunately, I myself am not very wise ergo I may have trouble acting the persona of a wise monk. Just because I get a high bonus on all my sense motive checks does not mean everything I do is character skill.    

no.

if you play a wise monk, there's still no way to apply your real wisdow to the game, even if in real life you were a wise person, you still have to pass a skill check and a dice throw to determine if you could sense the danger or decypher that ancient book.

So your personal enlightment or your creativity would not determine if you would be able to roleplay that character better.It will only determine how good of an actor you are in the table portraying that wise monk.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Some things blur the line between astrophysics and quantum mechanics, for example

but the core base of both things, is...mathematics.

And what does that have to do with naming genres?

some things blur the line on the surface, but going deeper a game is an rpg, or it's not. in the deepest of the core mechanics, a game is A or B.

[FedericoV]

TMZuk wrote...

I don't care if combat is turnbased or not. I care about that it is my characters skill that counts, as in DA:O, and not my skill, as in ME2.

Even in a tactical turn based RPG, the gamer's skill makes the difference. It's not that charachters choose themselves when to attack, what skill/power to use, when to use them, in what order and from what position. So, ME2 it's mostly the same, only in real time and with a shooter gameplay and with more emphasis to reflexes off course. 

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 août 2010 - 02:47 .

[Il Divo]

filetemo wrote...

no.

if you play a wise monk, there's still no way to apply your real wisdow to the game, even if in real life you were a wise person, you still have to pass a skill check and a dice throw to determine if you could sense the danger or decypher that ancient book.

So your personal enlightment or your creativity would not determine if you would be able to roleplay that character better.It will only determine how good of an actor you are in the table portraying that wise monk.

Ah, stuck on the dice rolls I see. In a role-playing game, an important aspect is role-playing, is it not? That does not just mean casting spells. It does not just mean swinging a sword. It also means being able to act a certain personality and to remain consistent within that personality barring some form of character change/development. If I ( the human being typing this post) am not a particularly wise individual, is it not true that I will have trouble acting the role of a wise individual? Creativity is another great example. The creative player will be much better at role-playing his chosen role than the uncreative player. Hence, player skill impacting character 'skill' or personality.  

[filetemo]

FedericoV wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

I don't care if combat is turnbased or not. I care about that it is my characters skill that counts, as in DA:O, and not my skill, as in ME2.

Even in a tactical turn based RPG, the gamer's skill makes the difference. It's not that charachter chooses themselves when to attack, what skill/power to use, when to use them, in what order and from what position. So, ME2 it's mostly the same, only in real time and with a shooter gameplay. 

This has already been explained.Using intelligence to manage is fine in rpgs, physical skills like reflexes is not.

That allows a 90 year old person to kick ass in DAO in nightmare, something they couldn't do in a high intensity shooter which demands cat-like reflexes and healthy hands RPG reward mind skills, not physical

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Some things blur the line between astrophysics and quantum mechanics, for example

but the core base of both things, is...mathematics.

And what does that have to do with naming genres?

some things blur the line on the surface, but going deeper a game is an rpg, or it's not. in the deepest of the core mechanics, a game is A or B.

No it isn't. Just as the perception of what "rock and roll" means has changed, so can that of "RPG."

Again, labels are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are not the same as rules. If something feels like an RPG but doesn't fit the previously-held notion of what an RPG is, then that means the previously-held notion is wrong.

If you were a biologist and flightless birds hadn't yet been discovered, then capability of flight might very well be part of how you define "birds." But then when ostriches or penguins or emus are discovered, do you revise the definition of bird, or do you stubbornly insist that they are not birds?

[FedericoV]

filetemo wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

I don't care if combat is turnbased or not. I care about that it is my characters skill that counts, as in DA:O, and not my skill, as in ME2.

Even in a tactical turn based RPG, the gamer's skill makes the difference. It's not that charachter chooses themselves when to attack, what skill/power to use, when to use them, in what order and from what position. So, ME2 it's mostly the same, only in real time and with a shooter gameplay. 

This has already been explained.Using intelligence to manage is fine in rpgs, physical skills like reflexes is not.

That allows a 90 year old person to kick ass in DAO in nightmare, something they couldn't do in a high intensity shooter which demands cat-like reflexes and healthy hands RPG reward mind skills, not physical

CRPG are videogames. The medium alone implies more emphasis on reflexes and mind/body coordination if we compare it with a pen and paper RPG, since you have to use a controller of some sort. But the fact that you need average reflexes to play ME2 do not mean it's not an RPG, only that is an action RPG.

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 août 2010 - 02:54 .

[filetemo]

Il Divo wrote...



Ah, stuck on the dice rolls I see. In a role-playing game, an important aspect is role-playing, is it not? That does not just mean casting spells. It does not just mean swinging a sword. It also means being able to act a certain personality and to remain consistent within that personality barring some form of character change/development. If I ( the human being typing this post) am not a particularly wise individual, is it not true that I will have trouble acting the role of a wise individual? Creativity is another great example. The creative player will be much better at role-playing his chosen role than the uncreative player. Hence, player skill impacting character 'skill' or personality.  

sigh

if you were an incredibly creative person roleplaying an incredible charismatic bard, and composed an incredibly creative tune to rally your soldiers, and singed it in front of every other player amusing them, BUT you were a level 1 bard and had no skills in singing, you would fail the skill check miserably.

If you were a dumb bguy who can't even write his name properly but your character sheet said you are a level 35 bard, you'd pass the check.

Besides, I've never found anybody stupid enougfh to not being able to portray a wise character at least decently. And when somebody is not especially creative, they play warriors to not embarass themselves.

Again, people playing pnp are mostly creative people.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
The definition of roleplaying is "inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character"
by your definition you can roleplay a movie or a commercial if you really get inside the character being displayed.

Dynasty Warriors: Empire - the RPG of 2009. It has an inventory system, attribute points, skills, feats and yes, even lets you customize your character.

[filetemo]

FedericoV wrote...

CRPG are videogames. The medium alone implies more emphasis on reflexes

absolutely not
text based adventures do not demand reflexes, turn based rpgs do not demand reflexes, point and click adventures do not demand reflexes. They don't even demand you to have both hands

[In Exile]

Xena_Shepard wrote...
Yeah DAO is turn-based it's just "behind the scenes" kind of thing, but it IS turn-based, however a game doesn't HAVE to be turn-based to be an RPG.

No, it isn't. Bioware has never made a turn based RPG. The only one I can think of offhand now is Temple of Elemental Evil. BG was real-time. The pause worked in a way that mimicked turn-based, but the fundamental mechanic itself did not depend on true turn-based gameplay.

[FedericoV]

filetemo wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

CRPG are videogames. The medium alone implies more emphasis on reflexes

absolutely not
text based adventures do not demand reflexes, turn based rpgs do not demand reflexes, point and click adventures do not demand reflexes. They don't even demand you to have both hands

I've said MORE emphasis. The level of emphasis can vary from one game to another, being more action oriented or less, being based on player reflexes or tactical skills. Still, it's not what defines if a game is a CRPG or not. A blind person could play a P&P RPG. Not a CRPG.

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...
Yeah DAO is turn-based it's just "behind the scenes" kind of thing, but it IS turn-based, however a game doesn't HAVE to be turn-based to be an RPG.

No, it isn't. Bioware has never made a turn based RPG. The only one I can think of offhand now is Temple of Elemental Evil. BG was real-time. The pause worked in a way that mimicked turn-based, but the fundamental mechanic itself did not depend on true turn-based gameplay.

DAO is turn based. Turn based doesn't only means you stand in a line like in final fantasy VII.
You attack, and your selected enemy attacks next. There's a turn queue for every character involved in the battle, even if it looks chaotic, DAO is indeed turn based, the developers said it.

[Merced256]

In Exile wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...
Yeah DAO is turn-based it's just "behind the scenes" kind of thing, but it IS turn-based, however a game doesn't HAVE to be turn-based to be an RPG.

No, it isn't. Bioware has never made a turn based RPG. The only one I can think of offhand now is Temple of Elemental Evil. BG was real-time. The pause worked in a way that mimicked turn-based, but the fundamental mechanic itself did not depend on true turn-based gameplay.

By this definition NWN2 wasn't turn based either even though you still had maximum attacks per turn in combat.

Regardless this thread has gone retarded. Whatever your definition of a RPG doesn't matter. What matters is DA2 might as well be called Dragon Effect. :innocent:

[Il Divo]

filetemo wrote...

Besides, I've never found anybody stupid enougfh to not being able to portray a wise character at least decently. And when somebody is not especially creative, they play warriors to not embarass themselves.

Again, people playing pnp are mostly creative people.

Not always the case in my experience. I've played with a variety of people across a variety of campaigns. I've seen many people have trouble filling their role-playing shoes because a style of character they choose. I've seen Paladins with high intelligence scores forget that they can detect evil, Wizards rush into melee combat, and clerics accidentally use negative energy on undead. In other words, player skill (or lack thereof) impacting character skill. This can be the case in a variety of scenarios. A player who is unskilled in tactics playing a tactical class, etc. The DM/other players cannot be made to play your characters for you all the time. Hence (once again) player skill impacting character skill.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
it's called metagaming. DM strongly avoid this or directly do not allow this. If you know something your character doesn't, you can't use that in-game.If you wanna play a creative bard but yourself are not very creative, the right way is to ask the DM "I do have a stat of 45 in charisma, can I come up with a song that motivates the soldiers?

And the DM says "Indeed, you compose an inspiring song that gives them +6 hitpoints"

You do not need to create the song. If you can't come up with something funny, the DM will declare you did it in game.

That's not his example. Let's say you are trying to play a particularly intelligent wizard - the Sherlock Homes of the world, according to the stats and player description. You are working with your party to track down the source of a magical plague. There are some clues around, laid by the DM. You, the player, is spectacularly unintelligent- bottom quartile, let's say. Your character should, by all expectation, connect the dots. Yet the DM leaves these hooks, and you cannot figure it out. So does the DM say, your character is smart enough to know this, so this is what you know? How do you resolve this?

[In Exile]

SirOccam wrote...

The closest science comes is probably the taxonomy and nomenclature found in Biology. There are strict rules about what is or is not a bird, for example, and any scientist who goes "look, it has wings, so it's a bird and that is that" would be a laughingstock. So would one who insists that penguins aren't birds because they can't fly and their "idea" of what a bird is is something that flies.

I see you've never had to deal with plant taxonomy before. New species born every minute, or every hour, depending on how exactly you're classifying things.

Just felt like pointing that out. Speaking as someone who was forced by his university to take an evolutionary biology course in first year, taxonomy is just as muddled as any area in science when you get into the nitty gritty of it. Math is the best example for clearly defined sets of things, and physics too, because of how mathematical it is. The farther away you move from math and let the real world push on your view, the harder categorization becomes.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
absolutely not
text based adventures do not demand reflexes, turn based rpgs do not demand reflexes, point and click adventures do not demand reflexes. They don't even demand you to have both hands

Google rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis. Fine motor movements required to move a mouse are not some gift from heaven.

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

That's not his example. Let's say you are trying to play a particularly intelligent wizard - the Sherlock Homes of the world, according to the stats and player description. You are working with your party to track down the source of a magical plague. There are some clues around, laid by the DM. You, the player, is spectacularly unintelligent- bottom quartile, let's say. Your character should, by all expectation, connect the dots. Yet the DM leaves these hooks, and you cannot figure it out. So does the DM say, your character is smart enough to know this, so this is what you know? How do you resolve this?

A much more eloquent example than my own. This was what I meant. Thank you. Certainly your DM can resolve it with a simple intelligence check to see if you concoct the solution to the problem, but it still dilutes the encounter of any meaning, I would say.

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...

That allows a 90 year old person to kick ass in DAO in nightmare, something they couldn't do in a high intensity shooter which demands cat-like reflexes and healthy hands RPG reward mind skills, not physical

Fil.... I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Now you're implying that it's somehow inherently wrong to play a video game in a different way from others.