215 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Tommy6860 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I do however, find your "irritate" remark a bit intolerant, considering your previous statement that you don't begrudge people liking it (PS:T). I don't bemoan those who games they love as irritatiing if my exerience to them was not at all appealing. I can see the game being irritating, if it didn't appeal to you though. I also didn't say Torment is the ultimate in whatever for everyone else, only that the game did that  for "me"; there's a difference in that respect when making the "tossed around" claim.

It goes like this -

Me (or someone else with similar tastes) "I like to be able to make my own character in an RPG game."
PST Fan (or just someone being snarky) "Torment is a set protagonist and the best RPG ever so you're wrong."

That happens.  A. Lot.

Other than that, it's fairly common for many people to get annoyed at whatever gets trumped too much by too many people as "great."  Just ask half the people on here how they feel when BioWare games are compared to The Witcher 2 or Skryim. <_<

Well, I guess that is how you take things. I tend not to take things personally regarding one's dislike or like for a game. It isn't like PS:T is thrown around at every turn here. I no more would tell others that the TW2 is better than DA2 (though my prefernces has me disliking DA2 greatly), because they liked DA2 better; they are going to like what they like. All I pointed was the ad hominem, it doesn't work for making a point. I get that you didn't care for PS:T, and that's fine. I don't get that that you feel affronted by the mere mention that one likes it and therefore, it irritates you.

1 - I just explained it.  With an example.  It's not me upset with people listing PS:T as a favorite game, it's them listing it as "the counter-example"... There is a BIG difference.  I've even (jokingly) taken to calling it Merin's Law, in reference to Godwin's Law.
2 - I fail to see the ad hominem.  I never once belittled someone's character nor attempted to dismiss anyone's argument by saying something negative but irrelevant about anyone.  "An attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it" is the definition of ad hominem, and I wasn't negating any truth of anyone by pointing out some unrelated characteristic.
I simply said  - "I can't say I hate the game - it's no NWN - but it does irritate me how often it gets tossed around as the ultimate example of gaming goodness."
That COULD be construed as a strawman, but hardly an ad hominem.  Who was I attacking?  What negative characteristic was I trying to use to dismiss any argument?
I tried to explain what I meant in more detail after you called me out on the "irritation" comment, but I think you are really misunderstanding my intent still.  Honestly, people can like Michael Bay's Transformers or Stephenie Meyer's Twilight, I am fine with them having different taste.

Really, it comes down to bad context.  You responded to my "mecca of cRPGs" selection with your own, which happened to be PS:T, and I posted a response that was something of a joke, and a self-deprecating one at that, but when I tried to explain my reaction you maybe (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to understand here) took my response as my arguing with your choice.  AND, if THAT is what you took my response as, MY APOLOGIES.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

So is the gamemaster of a tabletop game not playing a roleplaying game?

No. He is participating in an RPG, but not as a player.

MerinTB wrote...
Yes.

By letting you control ALL THE PLAYERS ON THE TEAM.  And the coach.

Kinda like you controlling the entire party of adventurers.  You know.

What does that have to do with anything? If anything you're presenting a cogent argument that such design does not belong in an RPG. Unless you're presenting Madden as another example as an RPG? Oh... I guess so... I'm afraid your credibility just crashed and burned as far as I'm concerned... I have a hunch you'll love the new Bioware.

MerinTB wrote...

Like D&D?

Don't even get me started on 4th edition.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Sylvius do me the courtesy of reading the posts before rebutting.

I did.

You said:

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Except now you're not really role playing. Any D&D player will tell you that the really important aspect of role playing isn't so much the players interactions with the world (ie DM), but their interactions with one another. This is where the real role playing takes place. When plans are formulated compromises must be made because everyone has their own unique agenda and this is what shapes the outcome of the adventure more than anything else.

There's no reason why a single player can't still do that among his multiple characters.  That you don't trust them not to metagame away conflicts doesn't mean that they will.  It just means that you don't think people will roleplay unless they're forced to roleplay.

But that's silly.  These are roleplaying games.  Why else are we playing them if not to roleplay?

In fact, I would argue that I can have a more satisfying roleplaying experience when controlling multiple characters interacting with each other because I can then have greater confidence that those characters will be played appropriately.  I don't know when another player has broken character for the sake of expedience.  But I know that I haven't.

I also said:
"But if you're suggesting that creating six characters and attributing
characteristics in your head for each is role playing... nope. What? Do
you have little conversations in your head between characters?"

A question to which I guess you would answer yes, but I continued...

" That's just being silly. Or maybe psychotic. Whatever little chats or
squabbles you may attribute to your characters none of them are ever
going to do anything you dont want them to do. That's what I mean when I
say it's " without any real meaning or consequence.""

What you're talking about is daydreaming. Not role playing. Deny it all you want but you ARE metagaming. You have absolute control of every member of the party. Nobody is ever going to say no to you and nothing is ever going to happen that you don't want to happen. Unless you're some kind of lunatic, I suppose.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's basically a morale check.  PCs should be subject to those, too.

Really? You think ordering a henchman to his certain death should require a morale check? <_<

In any event you make a point for me. With total party control no morale check needed. In he goes. But not before dropping all his valuables.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I agree entirely.  The arbitrary standard you've established, though, is in your definition of roleplaying.  As long as the player constinues to make in-character decisions, he's still roleplaying, no matter for how many different characters he is doing that.

There's nothing arbitrary about my standard. I want my role playing games to require me to role play. ID doesn't do that. It's a linear combat adventure. Nothing more.

BTW, this has been bugging me.

Your contention earlier that because something is hard to do is a good reason not to do it is ludicrous. We can agree to disagree about all this stuff, and the debate is fun and all, but you're just plain wrong on that one. Dangerously wrong. Ef up your life and die a dope smoking loser in a ****** basement apartment wrong.

You'll find in time that the more worthwhile something is, the more work it's going to be to achieve it. Don't waste to much of your life coming to terms with that.

My infant son is sleeping next to me, which is why it's taken me so long to write this. He seems to feel eating every three hours night and day and having a nice clean bottom is more important than preaching the evils of metagaming and lazy game design to fanboys on some EA house-organ forum, and he's right. Believe this, though. If hard work was reason enough not to do something your parents wouldn't have bothered having you in the first place.

Gotta go. Feeding time for my boy. Wifey is sleeping this shift.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 23 septembre 2011 - 06:15 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Just a little question that may not be on point since I don't have the time to read and properly respond - why is the roleplaying of the player limited to only one character?

As for game recommendations, most of the ones here are good. The Drakensang games, VtmB and Arcanum offer a lot.

I'd also recommend checking out the King's Bounty: The Legend. It's weak on narrative strength but from your distaste of action combat, I think it's worth a look, seeing as it's one of the better incarnations of TB combat in recent years.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 23 septembre 2011 - 04:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommy6860 wrote...

You are not and do not have the ability to not know what you are suppsoed to do. you asked, "When you leave the prison, where do you go?" The game actually tells you your quest and where you need to go next, there's an elimination of greyness right there.

If you use your genre-savvy and metagame your way through it, sure.  But if you stay in character, what reason does your character have to believe that there even is a "main quest"?  Why would he do what the King tells him to do?

You're not playing your character at all.  You're making gameplay decisions using your own knowledge.  That's metagaming.

Seriously, if just imagining that you "are" doing this is RPing, I won't begrudge it, but, then you'd have to concede the imagination just doesn't stop on so called "RPGs", they can apply to any game and genre you so please,a nd if so, well then, I can accept that.

It doesn't quite work in any game.  Any game that can contradict your imagined motivation for action does not permit this roleplaying style.

DA2 is such a game.  The ME games also do this.  The roleplaying I describe requires a less well described PC, and both ME and DA2 describe the PC too precisely.

I didn't agree to anything Sylvius, this is why I don't understand that you are not getting this. You have no choice to turn down a quest in Oblivion, that's a fact, for the main questline. Unless you just want to raom around, making discoveries of new locations and grinding, well then that's fine. If you want to finish the game's story, you have to accepot the quests.

I deny that the game even has a story unless you're doing it.  Until you talk to Jaufree, he's not relevant to the narrative.  If you never talk to Jaufree, he's never relevant to the narrative.

I don;'t even know who Jaufree is.  I never saw the so-called "main quest" in Oblivion.  I never went where the King told me to go, because my character thought it was a bad idea.

Of course, as long as the game offers the effect that my imagiantion can allow the game to do that, namely, that I have choices that have effects. In Oblivion, other than just imagining I actually made a change, the game does not reflect that like msot RPGs do.

I can't think of an CRPG that ever did that.  You're holding Oblivion to an impossible standard.

It surw does, though seriously limited. I can choose dialogue that has a meanuinful effect on NPCs and the plots.

You're metagaming again.  In-character, you can't know whether your dialogue has had an effect on an NPC.

No perception needed, the game gave that to me.

I don't think you know what the word "perception" means.

PS:T actually did what you say better than any RPG I have ever played. I didn't know anything about myself when I woke up in the morgue. In Oblivon, I knew I was a prisoner being told I have a misson to do.

This is why people think Torment is a great game.  Torment forces you to play the game the way I play every game.

I get that roleplaying experience out of every game if it will let me.  BG lets me.  KotOR lets me.  ToEE lets me.  Wizardry 8 lets me.  DAO lets me.  Oblivion lets me.  Even many strategy games let me.

ME and DA2 do not.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 septembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I also said:
"But if you're suggesting that creating six characters and attributing characteristics in your head for each is role playing... nope. What? Do you have little conversations in your head between characters?"

Of course.  How else would you do it?  Seriously, how do you play these games if not playing all the characters at once.  I would expect serious roleplayers to do this even in a game like DAO when working out combat tactics.

A question to which I guess you would answer yes, but I continued...

" That's just being silly. Or maybe psychotic. Whatever little chats or squabbles you may attribute to your characters none of them are ever going to do anything you dont want them to do. That's what I mean when I
say it's " without any real meaning or consequence.""

That's completely false.  The characters will act as they want to act.  If I don't break character when playing them, then they'll only cooperate when they all agree to do so, which they'll only do under mutually beneficial circumstances.

The characters will only act seamlessly in concert if I design them in concert, but there's no reason for me to do that.  If I build a party that always agrees, then yes, I'd get the gameplay experience you descirbe.  But why would I do that?  If I want to roleplay a party, then I should design a bunch of disparate characters to see how they work together.

This is expecially true if I don't know what the game's content is, yet.  The first time I play a game, I certainly can't design characters in advance who will all agree on all of the relevant issues that are raised during the game unless I give them all the exact same personality.

What you're talking about is daydreaming. Not role playing. Deny it all you want but you ARE metagaming. You have absolute control of every member of the party. Nobody is ever going to say no to you and nothing is ever going to happen that you don't want to happen.

That doesn't even make any sense.  I'm not even there.  Within the game, I don't exist.  My preferences cease being relevant as soon as character creation is over.

I'd only be metagaming if I consulted my own knowledge or preferences during gameplay.

I ask again, why do players only play the way they want to play when they are forced to do so?

There's nothing arbitrary about my standard. I want my role playing games to require me to role play.

Why?  I want roleplaying games to allow me to roleplay.  Why do you insist that the game force you to do something that you already claim you want to do?  What difference does it make if roleplaying is optional?  If you want to roleplay, you will roleplay.  You have free will.

Therefore, if you don't roleplay in IWD, then you don't want to roleplay.  Modus tollens.

BTW, this has been bugging me.

Your contention earlier that because something is hard to do is a good reason not to do it is ludicrous. We can agree to disagree about all this stuff, and the debate is fun and all, but you're just plain wrong on that one. Dangerously wrong. Ef up your life and die a dope smoking loser in a ****** basement apartment wrong.

You'll find in time that the more worthwhile something is, the more work it's going to be to achieve it. Don't waste to much of your life coming to terms with that.

You[re ignoring opportunity costs.  I was talking about implementing a suboptimal solution in cases where that solution requires more resources.

Why waste resources on a lesser outcome?

My infant son is sleeping next to me, which is why it's taken me so long to write this. He seems to feel eating every three hours night and day and having a nice clean bottom is more important than preaching the evils of metagaming and lazy game design to fanboys on some EA house-organ forum, and he's right. Believe this, though. If hard work was reason enough not to do something your parents wouldn't have bothered having you in the first place.

Gotta go. Feeding time for my boy. Wifey is sleeping this shift.

I suppose it's nice for you that you like your child.  Some people don't like theirs.

Had I known before having children how difficult it was going to be, I wouldn't have done it.  As it happens, I quite like mine, so I'm glad I did, but there was no guarantee I would like mine.  I made a bad bet, and I won - but that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad bet.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I also said:
"But if you're suggesting that creating six characters and attributing characteristics in your head for each is role playing... nope. What? Do you have little conversations in your head between characters?"

Of course.  How else would you do it?  Seriously, how do you play these games if not playing all the characters at once.  I would expect serious roleplayers to do this even in a game like DAO when working out combat tactics.

I actually think that the little conversations in my head are the best part 

PS:

Believe this, though. If hard work was reason enough not to do something
your parents wouldn't have bothered having you in the first place.

I don't think that having sex is that hard, actually.

Modifié par Dhiro, 23 septembre 2011 - 07:10 .

[Chromie]

Dhiro wrote...

Believe this, though. If hard work was reason enough not to do something
your parents wouldn't have bothered having you in the first place.

I don't think that having sex is that hard, actually.

Pretty fun actually.

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
By letting you control ALL THE PLAYERS ON THE TEAM.  And the coach.

Kinda like you controlling the entire party of adventurers.  You know.

What does that have to do with anything?

You keep stripping away context to make statements seem off.
You are arguing that you cannot role-play a party of adventurers, that you can only role-play one character.  Despite DM's role-playing multiple characters, and many people playing many table top games role-playing more than one character.

You don't think IWD is an RPG because there are no pre-gen, pre-scripted party members.  Ignoring my statements about how your arbitrary, narrow personal view of what makes an RPG would eliminate all those classic cRPGs that came out in the decades before Baldur's Gate.

I tried to make you see, through example, how a football game or a shooter aren't the exact experience as playing football or shooting a gun.  Like a cRPG is not going to be like a table top RPG.  But that the GAME part of it, the computer game part, simulates the experience of playing football or shooting a gun.

That, like a football game gives you control of the whole team (and not just one player), the classic cRPG gave you control of the whole party and not just one character.

That's what it has to do with anything.  You ignore half of what I write in response to you - I'm not sure why.

Solo adventures, like Lone Wolf books or the start the new Red Box D&D set or the one's put out by TSR like Lathan's Gold.  Role-playing.  By yourself.

Or, as MANY people have responded to you, role-playing more than one character at the table top game.  I've been part of many groups where this happened for many different reasons.  Most recent for me was about 6 months ago, a Mutants & Masterminds campaign that ran almost a year.  One character I played had a side-kick whom I RP'd.  Another player was a duplicator playing several clones at once.  Another player had three minions that he RP'd.

What you can't seem to admit, maybe even accept, is that YOUR limited view on what constitutes role-playing or RPGs flies in the face of the majority of people responding to you here, let alone the HISTORY of RPGs, both table top and computer.

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Like D&D?

Don't even get me started on 4th edition.

Okay... how about 3rd ED?  2nd?  1st?  You DO know that D&D was a modification of a miniature wargame called Chainmail, right?  That D&D was ALWAYs a miniature combat game, right?  Have you READ the rules?

This is one of my favorite disillusionments I can pull on 3rd ED fans who HATE 4E because it made the game a "mini combat game" -
grab your copy of the 3.5 PHB.  Turn to page 5.  Look under the subheading "What You Need To Play", 3rd dot - "A battle grid.  The DMG contains one."  Dot 4 - "Miniatures to represent each character and the monsters that challenge them."  Both of those are above Dot 5, which is about the dice.  No, this isn't an OPTIONAL list, it's what the PHB says you NEED to play.

1st and 2nd make maps and mini's sound more optional, but encourage their use and when spells and distances are listed in INCHES it's because they are talking about inches on the map.

Maybe you and your friends didn't use maps and mini's... just like me and my friends never tracked ammo nor encumberance.  But that's "house ruling" and ignoring parts of the game.

D&D was born of, and has always remained, a miniatures combat game.  You don't have to play it that way, but it's like saying that because so many people put money on Free Parking in Monopoly that that's really how to play the game despite the rules to the contrary.

4E didn't make it anymore mini's required than 3E.  If anything 3E made it more so than previous editions by including a Battle Grid with the DMG and listing "battle grid and miniatures" as "needed to play", obviously to help support their skirmish game they came out with around the same time they debuted 3E.  Remember those "beginners" boxes for 3E?  The ones with the maps and mini's?

*sigh*

-----

Here's an elephant in the room. 
Your whole criteria for IWD not being an RPG (and, by extension, Wasteland and Bard's Tale and Wizardry and Might & Magic and many, many, many other classic cRPGs) is because you can make more than one character in your adventuring party, more or less, right?
Because you wouldn't say that a game where you only make one character but don't have a party is no longer an RPG, or would you?  You aren't going to narrow cRPGs to ONLY be games where you have a party of adventurers but you only make one, are you?

Do you not consider RPing interactions with non-party members to be RPing?  Because there's plenty of THAT in IWD.

Or is it because there are no game-reacting story choices, different paths you can choose to go down for different endings, that makes those interactions not count?  Because, again, you are going to eliminate almost all cRPGs prior to Baldur's Gate at that point.

[Xewaka]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
Some DMs will allow you to play more than one character at a time, but I certainly never will and I don't personally know any who do precisely because it's bad role playing.

Then you've never met any Ars Magica Games Master, as in that game each and every player plays a Mage, a Companion (non-magical capable but still extraordinarie fellows), and from one to half a dozen grogs (henchem and low cast members of the Covenant). Oh, yes, the players also have to design the Covenant in common, this being a castle, fortress, palace, or even a small village where the whole party take residence. Most of the Grogs are the citizens of the settlement, keeping it working, as peasant caste tends to do. The setting is Mythic Europe, a reimagining of 14th century Europe where all myths are true. It is an excellent game, and one I enjoyed GM'ing.

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
So is the gamemaster of a tabletop game not playing a roleplaying game?

No. He is participating in an RPG, but not as a player.

I don't know about you, but this last wednesday I GM'ed a session of Dark Heresy. Among other things, I played as a cunning scrounger and rumormonger, a couple disheveled and impoverished workers, a junkie, a police chief, a greasy hostal keeper, and a bizarre cyborg performing heretical surgeries on abducted citizens. There's much more to GM'ing than throwing encounters at the players. I dare say that the GM is the one that does the most playing (and roleplaying) in a RPG game.

To keep in topic, I have already recommended Arcanum (and in a different occasion, Drakensang). Many people have recommended Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, which is also a great choice, as long as you can put up with the relatively wonky gameplay system. And, if you wish to venture outside your realm of comfort, you could try The Secret of Monkey Island. While the main character is set and has his own motivations, the gameplay style will probably be to your liking; besides, it's one of the rare examples of non-combat gameplay.

Modifié par Xewaka, 23 septembre 2011 - 09:41 .

[Il Divo]

MerinTB wrote...

-----

Here's an elephant in the room. 
Your whole criteria for IWD not being an RPG (and, by extension, Wasteland and Bard's Tale and Wizardry and Might & Magic and many, many, many other classic cRPGs) is because you can make more than one character in your adventuring party, more or less, right?
Because you wouldn't say that a game where you only make one character but don't have a party is no longer an RPG, or would you?  You aren't going to narrow cRPGs to ONLY be games where you have a party of adventurers but you only make one, are you?

Do you not consider RPing interactions with non-party members to be RPing?  Because there's plenty of THAT in IWD.

Or is it because there are no game-reacting story choices, different paths you can choose to go down for different endings, that makes those interactions not count?  Because, again, you are going to eliminate almost all cRPGs prior to Baldur's Gate at that point.

I certainly don't think that allowing the player control of multiple characters makes the game "not an RPG". However, I will say that I myself do not enjoy controlling multiple characters.

[MerinTB]

Xewaka wrote...
There's much more to GM'ing than throwing encounters at the players. I dare say that the GM is the one that does the most playing (and roleplaying) in a RPG game.

Only if he's doing it right.

Chris Perkins from WotC shows this everytime he runs a game for Acquisitions, Inc.



He's the one in the hat, in the middle.  And he's awesome.

You know what happens when you leave it up to the PLAYERS ALONE to RP amongst themselves?  You get bored players in the span of ten minutes to (best I've seen last) a session and a half.

Then again, I've not LARPed and I'm sure Mind's Eye players and such would disagree with me... but I, personally, see that more as improv acting and not gaming.

To keep in topic, I have already recommended Arcanum (and in a different occasion, Drakensang). Many people have recommended Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, which is also a great choice, as long as you can put up with the relatively wonky gameplay system. And, if you wish to venture outside your realm of comfort, you could try The Secret of Monkey Island. While the main character is set and has his own motivations, the gameplay style will probably be to your liking; besides, it's one of the rare examples of non-combat gameplay.

I cannot recommend Bloodlines high enough, Sylvius.  I admit to not understanding your tastes at all if you don't absolutely love that game.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Sorry. I don't have much time but I'll clarify.

DMs are role playing in that they are playing roles, that much is certain, but they are not, strictly speaking, playing a role-playing game. To continue the sports analogy, a referee isn't playing football, an umpire isn't playing baseball, and a line judge isn't playing tennis, but they are all participating in the game.

What a DM does is much more akin to story-telling. DM's don't need to worry about consequences (other than the real world consequences of pissing off and losing players). DMs dictate in-game consequences. They can even overide player actions to serve the adventure.

For example, playing Top Secret. The team finished the first part of the adventure. The antagonist was wounded and lying in a pool of his own blood. He was supposed to gasp out some last words, a clue to the party that even though the bad guy is defeated the adventure wasn't over.

Problem. The assassin in the party had clearance to shoot the guy, and the moment he saw the bad guy still breathing he squeezed off three shots center mass.

But the DM, or in this case "admin", is not bound by rules or consequences.

"The gun jams. As you clear the jam the dying playboy manages a bloody grin and rasps, 'You fools. You think you've won. You're all dead men and you don't even know it."

There's no roll. The DM simply dictates "the gun jams". Deal with it. The DM is well within his power to simply dictate that the shell casing from the last shot jammed the weapon.

The assassin, being an idiot, put him down anyway, BTW. "You first." BLAM BLAM BLAM. Damn near caused a TPK.

Anyway, the DM is playing roles, but he's not playing a role-playing game because he has total control of the situation.

BTW... I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth. I never said that it's not possible for a total party control game to be an RPG. I thought NWN2 was an excellent RPG. Even total party build games can be RPGs if the player is making decisions that alter the outcome of the game. Personally I don't like when devs gloss over the party dynamic, and it smacks of lazy game design. I'm unlikely to buy or play such a game because it probably won't hold my interest for long and I don't like lazy game designs (yes, I'm boycotting EA), but it's still possible to have other role playng elements.

What I said is that in order to call itself an RPG a game needs to have some role-playing elements. Icewind Dale has none. Nothing you do or say to anyone is going to have any impact on what happpens next. The sole function of the conversations is to provide exposition. It's a totally linear adventure and THAT'S not role playing.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:51 .

[MerinTB]

A DM is a rules arbiter and decision maker...
but he should never resort to "Your gun just jams. Just cause. You can't ruin my plans!!!!" I have had MANY games where players miss out on some information here and there because they do unexpected things. That's role-playing. A GOOD DM never sets things down that the players MUST find or else the game dead-ends. That's bad game design.

Most DMs would agree with me that it's more fun playing the game as DM than as a player. Sometimes it's nice to step back and not be as responsible for everyone else's fun, and get to not be the center of attention...

but you sure as HECK are playing when you run the game. It's not like a referee at all. One of the DM's roles IS to be the referee in a sense, but that's far what all he does.

He's playing the game because he (or she) is:

- controlling characters and acting them out
- reacting to what the players do
- making die rolls and playing the combat (I have FAR more fun running some dumb goblins or easily provoked wizard, where if they win or lose matters less than getting their feel right and having them act as they would, than trying to balance RPing my own character while having the personal desire to "succeed" as in keeping my character alive and working WITH the party.)

Like Shadow over Camelot, Betrayal at the House on Haunted Hill, BSG the board game, etc... just because one player is suddenly against the others doesn't mean he's no longer player.

And like the person who knows how to play the board game who's explaining the rules to others as they play, including arbitrating disagreements about rules, the DM is playing.

UrkOfGreyhawk - I think most people here can accept that you have your own (fairly precise) view of what constitutes "playing" or "role-playing" or "role-playing games"...
can you just accept that others (nearly everyone responding to you at this point) doesn't share your views?

EDIT -

What I said is that in order to call itself an RPG a game needs to have some role-playing elements.
Icewind Dale has none. Nothing you do or say to anyone is going to have
any impact on what happpens next. The sole function of the
conversations is to provide exposition. It's a totally linear adventure
and THAT'S not role playing.

Role-playing elements?  And why do you get to decide what are role-playing elements?
Here's what the gaming industry (appparently) currently considers role-playing elements -
 - character advancement via stats
 - loot

Here's what I, personally, think of when I think of what makes a game a role-playing game to me
 - control over who and what my character is and becomes, preferablly starting off with allowing me to create said character from scratch
 - control over my character's actions throughout the game without the game imposing too many decisions on what my character does, thinks or believes

That's it for me.

Linear adventure is not role-playing?  Okay, now you've eliminated even MORE classic RPGs.  Nowhere in any definition of RPG I've seen ANYWHERE have I ever seen "has to be open world" listed as a requirement or even an element of an RPG.

I've played TONS of table top sessions, and ran quite a few back in the day, where the story was quite linear.  Most modules work this way.  D&D Encounters certainly works this way.

There are far more "linear story" cRPGs out there... FAR FAR more... than there was open world, open story.

Modifié par MerinTB, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:57 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Right. So a GOOD DM would just let the assassin kill the antagonist, then kill time for 15 minutes and say "a modified 727 drops a nuclear bomb on you. You're all dead along with a half million citizens of London. Good night. See you next week?"

Please. The DMs job is move the adventure forward. He's supposed to make the game fun and exciting, not slaughter the entire party because one hotheaded player did something stupid.

And BTW... I played Chainmail.

I also played every edition of D&D, including the original rules. I still play first edition advanced. WITHOUT minatures. You do know that most of us couldn't afford miniatures "back in the day" and played without them?

So by your definition Traveller isn't a role playing game? There's no character advancement stat improvement or experince point system in Traveller. So I guess the only thing required is loot? I guess that makes monopoly an RPG too?

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 23 septembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
Right. So a GOOD DM would just let the assassin kill the antagonist, then kill time for 15 minutes and say "a modified 727 drops a nuclear bomb on you. You're all dead along with a half million citizens of London. Good night. See you next week?"

Possibly.  A better DM wouldn't have let things get to such a point of "players must do X or it all ends."  A good DM doesn't even let COMBAT end with a TPK.  Sometimes a DM loses track of HP and things and the party falls down - but there are such things as enemies offering the party to surrender or some such.

You don't want "the player must talk to person X and get piece of information Y" - that's bad design.  What you want is "the players need to learn about Y... they could talk to person X, they could have a contact do some research and unveil W who knows Y as well, they could spy on V and overhear V talking about Y... or the players could come up with a plan that the DM finds suitable and goes with that."

The fact that killing that one character would cause a TPK was a failing on the DM's part.  Forcing a character's weapon to jam, arbitrarily, with no precedence (I'd wager) and no rules governing it, makes the players feel like there's no consistency and events are outside their influence.

That's my opinion, at least.

Please. The DMs job is move the adventure forward. He's supposed to make the game fun and exciting, not slaughter the entire party because one hotheaded player did something stupid.

Oversimplification.  There are other options besides "kill all the players" and "suspension-of-disbelief-breaking heavy-handed manipulation of events" - why doesn't the DM just say to the player "your character DOESN'T shoot" - that's just as jarring, IMO.

And BTW... I played Chainmail.

Congrats!  Did you have fun?

I also played every edition of D&D, including the original rules. I still play first edition advanced. WITHOUT minatures. You do know that most of us couldn't afford miniatures "back in the day" and played without them?

I, too, have played everything from original red box to 4E, with possibly the exception of 3.0 (there was a good span of no D&D role-playing for me from about 1997 until 2005), though to be fair it was mostly 2nd ED.  And, surprise surprise, most of the time we didn't use miniatures either!
I also have almost always played Monopoly with money on Free Parking.  Still a house rule.

But not having money is a silly excuse - this isn't Warhammer tournaments where you must have painted figures to play.  As the 2nd ED PHB states on Page 10, under the subheading of Required Materials, " Miniature figures are handy for keeping track of where everyone is in a confusing situation like a battle.  These can be as elaborate or simple as you like.  Some players use miniature lead or pewter figures painted to resemble their character.  Plastic soldiers, chess pieces, boardgame pawns, dice, or bits of paper can work just as well."

Yeah, poor you... no bottle caps or extra dice or plastic soldiers to use?  When my friends and I DID use mini's (for games other than MSHRPG which came with all those very cool cardboard pieces) we'd cannibalize other games and toys.  I come from a poor family, too... didn't stop me from using the Dog from Monopoly or my cousin using a Lego.

So by your definition Traveller isn't a role playing game? There's no character advancement stat improvement or experince point system in Traveller. So I guess the only thing required is loot? I guess that makes monopoly an RPG too?

Actually, just right above your response, I said THIS:

MerinTB wrote...
Here's what I, personally, think of when I think of what makes a game a role-playing game to me
 -
control over who and what my character is and becomes, preferablly
starting off with allowing me to create said character from scratch
 -
control over my character's actions throughout the game without the
game imposing too many decisions on what my character does, thinks or
believes

I, personally, think loot and stat advancement are often IN RPG games, but I don't necessarily think they constitute RPG elements.  Character customization via stats is one way, an easy and well-established way, to give players control over shaping their character.  But it's not the only way.

Maybe you were confused with when I (somewhat mockingly) listed what the game industry considers "RPG elements" right before I listed what I think of, personally, when I think of what is an RPG to me.  The two were not connected - as in one was what I see the industry believes and the other was what I believe.

Though I'll toss "linear adventure != RPG" up there with the concepts that I would personally consider inadequate.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Yay! We found common ground! Character advancement and loot are not in and of themselves adequate features to identify a game as an RPG, nor are they necessary to an RPG. BTW it Sylvanus that said that, not you. But it's a pretty common rallying cry.

Saying the DM was somehow negligent in letting it "get that far" is rather disingenuous. You weren't there and you're really not in a place to judge. It was a great adventure (even according to your criteria, very opEn ended with a lot of ways to get to the final objective), I think the DM did a great job. The jammed weapon was, IMO, a perfectly acceptable way to deal with a problem player.

I did like Chainmail, and until Battle System came along it was intricately weaved into my D&D campaign for resolving epic battles. We didn't play bottlecap miniatures because it broke immersion. And you need more than miniatures. Back in the days of yore some of us had battlemats, but dry erase pens were expensive, hard to come by, and often didn't work as advertised (all of our battlemats were crisscrossed with indelible lines, especiallly red). Even if you had one the process of taking the miniatures off the mat, redrawing the terrain, and replacing the miniatures was time consuming and boring. We didn't have photoshop and printers back then, there were no battle tiles. We couldn't just show up to the game with a bunch of pre-rendered tiles. We preferred to just talk it out and give the DM powers of arbitration and only broke out the cardboard counters to resolve mass combat, sieges, and the like. I still use rerenderings of the old battle system counters to this day: counters, Golden Goblins, Mauve Minotaurs, and Tan Trolls packs I rendered in photoshop.

Most people played that way back in the late 70's and early '80s. Miniature just aren't required for role-playing (and vice-versa). I think one of the reasons I like to DM for NWN games is it's a way to take the hassles of RPGs... the miniatures, the die rolling etc... out of the equation. You don't have to worry about the boring non RP details, but you can still use them.

I think I'll quit here. This discussion has become quite tiresome. Nobody is convincing anyone of anything, and with EA calling the shots I'm quite certain Bio will be catering to your tastes far more than mine. Good luck and good gaming.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 23 septembre 2011 - 10:16 .

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
Yay! We found common ground! Character advancement and loot are not in and of themselves adequate features to identify a game as an RPG, nor are they necessary to an RPG. BTW it Sylvanus that said that, not you.

We do agree there and perhaps it would be best to end there.

Though - what are you attributing to ?Sylvanus? (do you mean Sylvius?)

This?

Here's what I, personally, think of when I think of what makes a game a role-playing game to me
 -
control over who and what my character is and becomes, preferablly starting off with allowing me to create said character from scratch
 -
control over my character's actions throughout the game without the game imposing too many decisions on what my character does, thinks or believes

Because those are all my words there.


EDIT - also

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
Most people played that way back in the late 70's and early '80s.
Miniature just aren't required for role-playing (and vice-versa).
I think one of the reasons I like to DM for NWN games is it's a way to
take the hassles of RPGs... the miniatures, the die rolling etc... out
of the equation. You don't have to worry about the boring non
RP details, but you can still use them.

Be careful about saying "most" - or acting like you are THAT much older or something.  I get the sense you are a tad older than me, but I was role-playing by 1982.  And we used miniatures about half the time - it depended on the game and who was running it.  D&D saw mini's only about a quarter of the time back then, but MSHRPG (which came with maps and cardboad mini's in the box) we always did (and we played a lot of more of Marvel than D&D) - later on D&D got more and more mini's when I played, while games like Rifts and Vampire the Masquerade never had any.  Depended on the game.

But one thing is clear - TSR (and later WotC) designed, and always intended, D&D to be with mini's and maps.  Me and my friends back in the day, and you yourself, not using them was by chose and house rule.  Not by game design.
Free Parking.

I'm in a Pathfinder game.  You know, Pathfinder, born of the rage of 3rd Ed players at 4E changing everything.  With all players who, to varying degrees, dislike 4E.
The Pathfinder game is designed for maps and mini's, though it indeed knows it's opinionated base and takes PAINS in the rule book to say how maps and mini's are OPTIONAL.  Still, the rules and all the combat illustrations use maps and mini's.  The combat section is a significant portion of the book, really only dwarfed by the parts that list feats, skills and loot (due to describing all those items.)
And the first game, the first session, the GM whips out a battle grid.  Just saying.

You can play the game however you want.

The point being - from way back at the start of this - complaining that 4E changed D&D to mini's combat is born from ignorance, either deliberate or inadvertant.

How you played D&D doesn't change how it was designed to be played.  4E didn't change that.

Modifié par MerinTB, 23 septembre 2011 - 10:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

How you played D&D doesn't change how it was designed to be played.  4E didn't change that.

In Urk's defense, the change 4E made was in how it effectively made miniatures mandatory.  It's extremely difficult to play 4E without miniatures (or little bits of paper on a grid) because of how many abilities deal with moving creatures around in very specific ways.

Playing without miniatures is a lot harder now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Yay! We found common ground! Character advancement and loot are not in and of themselves adequate features to identify a game as an RPG, nor are they necessary to an RPG. BTW it Sylvanus that said that, not you. But it's a pretty common rallying cry.

I hope you're actually referring to Sylvanus, and not me, because I certainy didn't advance that position.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

How you played D&D doesn't change how it was designed to be played.  4E didn't change that.

In Urk's defense, the change 4E made was in how it effectively made miniatures mandatory.  It's extremely difficult to play 4E without miniatures (or little bits of paper on a grid) because of how many abilities deal with moving creatures around in very specific ways.

Playing without miniatures is a lot harder now.

I still think that opportunity attacks, flanking, five foot step, empower spell feat, mobility... all the things that 3E introduced are far more "mini requiring" than powers are.  Just that with 4E they stripped all pretense of "feet" or "inches" and went straight with the simplicity of "squares."

I know playing Star Wars Saga, without a map and mini's, was very frustrating as most of the abilities (hold-over ones from 3E, not new ones for 4E) were about pushing, pulling, flanking... and without a map and mini's it's a pain to keep asking the GM "where are they relative to me now?  how about now?  is there cover?  how far to it?"  Looking at a map is much easier for any kind of tactical combat.

But your mileage may vary.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

I still think that opportunity attacks, flanking, five foot step, empower spell feat, mobility... all the things that 3E introduced are far more "mini requiring" than powers are.  Just that with 4E they stripped all pretense of "feet" or "inches" and went straight with the simplicity of "squares."

I think that invites rules-lawyering from players whenever a DM isn't using a grid.

And I'm a rules lawyer.  I know when I'm going to make annoying semantic distinctions.

I know playing Star Wars Saga, without a map and mini's, was very frustrating as most of the abilities (hold-over ones from 3E, not new ones for 4E) were about pushing, pulling, flanking... and without a map and mini's it's a pain to keep asking the GM "where are they relative to me now?  how about now?  is there cover?  how far to it?"  Looking at a map is much easier for any kind of tactical combat.

As long as that combat takes place in a fairly small space, perhaps.

A running battle through miles of tunnels would be very difficult to do with miniatures.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A running battle through miles of tunnels would be very difficult to do with miniatures.

Not really. Only use miniatures to track actors' positions relative to one another. You don't need to map their position relative to the environment (except in cases in which aspects of the environment become actors, but then it's hardly any different; if the forward motion is constant, then the environmental actor has a speed in the opposite direction; it's only around for a round or two; etc etc).

[Maria Caliban]

4e DnD > 3.x DnD

Evidence: You don't have to play a lawful good paladin, which means you don't have to spend hours arguing with the DM as to what 'lawful' and 'good' mean.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I still think that opportunity attacks, flanking, five foot step, empower spell feat, mobility... all the things that 3E introduced are far more "mini requiring" than powers are.  Just that with 4E they stripped all pretense of "feet" or "inches" and went straight with the simplicity of "squares."

I think that invites rules-lawyering from players whenever a DM isn't using a grid.

And I'm a rules lawyer.  I know when I'm going to make annoying semantic distinctions.

So am I.  It's why I hate playing without minis/maps.  It just feels so arbitrary, like the DM doesn't care (I know the only times I don't use maps and minis when I'm DM'ing are when I'm not really feeling into it that night, so I just kind of half-ass it.)

Playing non-D&D games, I don't mind skipping the grid if the system isn't really designed to work with one (like the White Wolf system.)

As to the original topic...Everything I might suggest has already been suggested...I've actually picked up some suggestions myself (I really need to try Arcanum again...I always have issues with skill-based games in which companions are scarce or non-existent, because I can never settle on a skill set.)

Maria Caliban wrote...
4e DnD > 3.x DnD

Evidence: You don't have to play a lawful good paladin, which means you don't have to spend hours arguing with the DM as to what 'lawful' and 'good' mean.

I'd say that better evidence is that now fighters can do more in combat than say "I attack X."

I'm still half-convinced that everyone who hates 4E was strictly a caster player in previous editions.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 24 septembre 2011 - 06:30 .

[Xewaka]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
A running battle through miles of tunnels would be very difficult to do with miniatures.

Not really. Only use miniatures to track actors' positions relative to one another. You don't need to map their position relative to the environment (except in cases in which aspects of the environment become actors, but then it's hardly any different; if the forward motion is constant, then the environmental actor has a speed in the opposite direction; it's only around for a round or two; etc etc).

Gorkamorka (a gang battles miniature game, which can basically be described as Orcs meet Mad Max in the grimdark 41st millenium) actually had such an scenario, with an Ork gang chasing another to rob their junk as they speeded through a gorge. Rather than move the vehicles forward, you simply moved the scenario backwards at the regular vehicle speed. When an scenery piece left the table, a new one was added on the opposite end of the table. It was extremely fun.