332 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Pzykozis wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...
Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there, lest DA:O, Planescape et al. become action adventure games the assertion that it is integral is a misconception.

You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.

What happens when people take Heroclix mini's and use them to play Marvel Saga?  What happens when people take marbles or Matchbox cars, give them names and personalities, and play with them like most people would play with GI Joes or other action figures?  What happens when someone takes a deck of playing cards and builds a card house?

They are, quite legitimately, using products for things other than what they were created for.

That doesn't change the fact of what they were created for is what they are intended for.

By your excessively self-centered argument, Heroclix are seperate things from miniature gaming, marbles are seperate from playing ringer, and playing cards are separate from card games.

Deconstructing items from their intended use, because you personally choose to do something different with said items, does NOT change what they were made to be used for.

This is key, here...

language needs to have generally accepted meanings.  We use words with fairly set definitions so we can communicate.  If each individual decides to make up his own personal meanings to words, and tries to force the world to fit to his own definitions while ignoring what the words are generally used to mean, then communication breaks down.

You are trying to artificially, and I'd argue wholly selfishly, strip the definition and meaning from the word roleplaying game so it fits the mold of what you use said games for. For your own ends, to win and arugment, you are playing with language and deconstructing meanings by using seemingly incongruous examples instead of any and only definitions.

Ergo....

I really think you should take a look at sophism.

Playing a game isn't its intended function?

Strawman. I never said that, nor was it my point.

Pzykozis wrote...
Roleplaying is a perfectly valid form of interaction but it doesn't preclude the fact that games are played in general with or without the role idea attached.

Games are played without roleplaying. That is not being disputed by anyone. Argue against my argument, not against arguments that I'm not making.

And roleplaying games ARE indeed played without roleplaying by some people. My friends and I, way back in the 80's, would take the MSHRPG and do what we called "arena battles" where we just used the character cards as a deck, dealt them out, and held Danger Room battles with zero character development, acting in character, speaking in character... nothing but die rolls and attacks. We used a roleplaying game to play without roleplaying at all...

but that was NOT what the game was made to do. Because I can use a 2x4 as a stepping stool, a canvas to paint on, or to hit someone over the head doesn't change the fact that a 2x4 is made and intended to be used for construction.

People using things for their unintended purposes doesn't change what their purpose is.

No amount of examples of people using items outside of what they were made for will change this fact. You may as well stop with the anecdotes along this nature. It is conceded and inconsequential.

Pzykozis wrote...
I think you ever so slightly inflate the size of people who actually roleplay vs those that don't.

And I know you are attributing arguments to me that I never made.  Not once did I mention how many people roleplay when they play a roleplaying game. Numbers are not the issue, so what you imagine I may conceive of the size of people who roleplay is both irrelevant as well as absolutely speculation.

Also I think trying to pass off the idea that roleplaying has an agreed meaning in and of itself is disingenuous at best. Some of the worst text based fights I've seen are simply because someone isn't RPing rightly.

There are dictionary defintions.  There are sections of gaming stores and book stores where roleplaying books and games are placed.  There is, quite clearly, general and accepted definitions.

The ONLY reasons that there is ANY kind of argument about this are as follows:

1 - video game companies that want to use the RPG label to attract fans of RPGs but don't want to be restricted by what that term means... this has caused confusion, and a good push of that recently comes from PR people who are deliberately obsfucating the term for their own ends
2 - people like you who play games labeled RPGs who pick and choose what they like and feel that since you (parable here) picked up a spoon and used it as a musical instrument that the definition of spoon cannot be and should not be a dining utensil.  At the very real risk of repetition to the edge of muting the point, because you can use something for an unintended purpose does not change what that thing was made to do

Pzykozis wrote...
Its not artificial to bring logic to an arguement, but it can be selfish I guess. The problem with that (me being selfish) is that I'm the one with the completely open idea as to what an RPG is whereas its the people arguing against me who enforce their selfish view of what an RPG is even when such a view is contrarian.

Again, sophistry.  You are playing with words and using rhetoric to twist arguments.  You took my point (that your definition of roleplaying games has nothing to do with roleplaying was selfish as it existed solely based on how YOU played RPGs) and you are trying to do a tu quoque fallacy by saying "I'm selfish?  Well, you are selfish too!"

You are not open to the definition - you are excluding a purposefully descriptive word in the compound word roleplaying game and claiming that it is seperate from the definition of said compound word. If this is not sophistry alone, the fact that you continue to try and argue that roleplaying games and roleplaying are seperate things and engage in numerous logical fallacies to do so surely makes it so.

Pzykozis wrote...
Mass Effect 2 and 3 are not RPGs apparently yet... well y'know. DA2 is not an RPG apparently but... the biggest of course being that the Final Fantasy series aren't RPGs... (or that JRPGs in general aren't actual RPGs) BSN suffers quite a huge amount by some strange insularity. Enforcing its own opinions as though it were the majority... it's not even an acceptable microcosm.

And here you go WAY off the deep end, attributing many arguments that others (others, meaning specifically NOT ME) to someone who didn't make them (again, namely ME.)

And these are more examples and even borderline non-sequitors.  What people call Mass Effec 2, or Dragon Age 2, or Terminator 2, or President Vladimir Putin, is beside the point.

Regardless, I wasn't arguing about ME2 or DA2 or FF or any such extraneous nonsense you bring in - they have no bearing on your absolutely ridiculous point of contention -

which, again, I quote -

Pzykozis wrote...
Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're separate things.

Pzykozis wrote...
Sophistry, meh whatever.

Indeed.

Modifié par MerinTB, 18 août 2012 - 06:29 .

[Pzykozis]

MerinTB wrote...

Strawman.  I never said that, nor was it my point.

Games are played without roleplaying.  That is not being disputed by anyone.  Argue against my argument, not against arguments that I'm not making.

And roleplaying games ARE indeed played without roleplaying by some people.  My friends and I, way back in the 80's, would take the MSHRPG and do what we called "arena battles" where we just used the character cards as a deck, dealt them out, and held Danger Room battles with zero character development, acting in character, speaking in character... nothing but die rolls and attacks.  We used a roleplaying game to play without roleplaying at all...

but that was NOT what the game was made to do.  Because I can use a 2x4 as a stepping stool, a canvas to paint on, or to hit someone over the head doesn't change the fact that a 2x4 is made and intended to be used for construction.

People using things for their unintended purposes doesn't change what their purpose is.

No amount of examples of people using items outside of what they were made for will change this fact.  You may as well stop with the anecdotes along this nature.  It is conceded and inconsequential.

And I know you are attributing arguments to me that I never made.  Not once did I mention how many people roleplay when they play a roleplaying game.  Numbers are not the issue, so what you imagine I may conceive of the size of people who roleplay is both irrelevant as well as absolutely speculation.

There are dictionary defintions.  There are sections of gaming stores and book stores where roleplaying books and games are placed.  There is, quite clearly, general and accepted definitions.

The ONLY reasons that there is ANY kind of argument about this are as follows:

1 - video game companies that want to use the RPG label to attract fans of RPGs but don't want to be restricted by what that term means... this has caused confusion, and a good push of that recently comes from PR people who are deliberately obsfucating the term for their own ends
2 - people like you who play games labeled RPGs who pick and choose what they like and feel that since you (parable here) picked up a spoon and used it as a musical instrument that the definition of spoon cannot be and should not be a dining utensil.  At the very real risk of repetition to the edge of muting the point, because you can use something for an unintended purpose does not change what that thing was made to do

Again, sophistry.  You are playing with words and using rhetoric to twist arguments.  You took my point (that your definition of roleplaying games has nothing to do with roleplaying was selfish as it existed solely based on how YOU played RPGs) and you are trying to do a tu quoque fallacy by saying "I'm selfish?  Well, you are selfish too!"

You are not open to the definition - you are excluding a purposefully descriptive word in the compound word roleplaying game and claiming that it is seperate from the definition of said compound word.  If this is not sophistry alone, the fact that you continue to try and argue that roleplaying games and roleplaying are seperate things and engage in numerous logical fallacies to do so surely makes it so.

And here you go WAY off the deep end, attributing many arguments that others (others, meaning specifically NOT ME) to someone who didn't make them (again, namely ME.)

And these are more examples and even borderline non-sequitors.  What people call Mass Effec 2, or Dragon Age 2, or Terminator 2, or President Vladimir Putin, is beside the point.

Regardless, I wasn't arguing about ME2 or DA2 or FF or any such extraneous nonsense you bring in - they have no bearing on your absolutely ridiculous point of contention -

It's not a strawman A roleplaying game is fundamentally a game, and a game is meant to be played, you can argue that point if you want but I wont ever see it your way. Roleplaying is a desriptor that adds certain connotations to something but what it describes is a game which is the most important part of the item.

Again a game is meant to be played, your choice of style of play can be varied whether you roleplay or just play neither are right or wrong, none of your anecdotes are remotely close to this at all it'd be closer to driving (with the same car that can miraculously have both) in manual or automatic rather than driving and eating cheese. which whilst hyperbolic still describes the similarity between using 2x4 as a building material and as a canvas.

Another way of looking at it would be saying that being sporting or otherwise playing sport is required to interact with a sports sim. It's not.The game itself is played and its about sport, your inclination towards sport aside from motivation to play the game in the first place is irrelavant. RPGs are awkward in that regard in that it doesn't or isn't able to effectively describe itself by RPG all it does it call up connatations of systems mechanics battles and the like.

Really there's an accepted description? So why are we having this conversation in the first place why do people argue over what is an RPG or not?  Regardless I was talking about RP not RPGs again different things, it has nothing to do with people who don't RP at all because it's not something they have to think about. MMOs are fun places filled with RP'ers who hate each other because all of them do it wrong, hyperbole again but meh.
If you want to go with the idea that shops have the right description i'm fine with that I use that myself but as my final point last time pointed out it doesn't swing in favour of those who say RPing is integral.

An arguement is a battle of words... I'm not selfish I'm not denying anyone's anything I simply said it is not required for there to be roleplaying for it to be an RPG (i'm not sure how having a more vague notion of what an RPG is, is somehow at the same time the more closed mindset). I am not saying RPGs have no roleplaying thats a perfectly valid way of playing them I just don't see it in anyway as a core or integral part (i.e. an RPG cannot exist without RPing) because evidently they can be played; that is used for their intended purpose without the need for roleplaying. I'm not using the game as a building material I'm still for all intensive purposes doing exactly the same things with it that you are I'm just driving in manual or whatever, to refer back to my previous anecdote.

My points aren't all aimed directly at you I'm making an arguement against an idea shared by a few here though I am arguing with you the point is that despite your apparent clear RPG meaning and seemingly ascribing that the majority deem RP fundamental to the RPG genre this is patently false. If RP is required for an RPG and as others have said before they can't roleplay in the Witcher or DA2 or what have you then why are they to the majority of people classed as RPGs? Or as my closing point previously Final Fantasy, I've never been aware of people RPing Final Fantasy (i'll apologise if this does turn out to be the case but, meh.) and yet it is classed as an RPG.

I'm confused as to how you don't see the relevance of the final point, as above so continues; people have said you can't roleplay shephard they have said they can't roleplay Hawke I'm fairly sure or atleast fairly comfortable in my assumption that people can't or don't RP in the FF series (or majority of them anyway since FF11 and 14 are open to that) and yet they are clearly considered to be RPGs. Alot in particular argued that you can't roleplay Geralt yet TW2 is pretty well considered by RPG standards. My 'ridiculous' point of contention being that you don't have to have roleplay for it to be an RPG is precisely backed up by these games and it also completely undermines the opposite idea.

They quite simply have a lot of bearing on the point of contention.

[ScotGaymer]

Pzykozis wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...
This made me lol.

What a ridiculous assertion. Of course role playing is integral and necessary for a Roleplaying game. That's kind of the point.

If there is no roleplaying then it ceases to be a RolePlaying Game and becomes an Action Adventure Game. Usually. Sometimes a strategy game. Sometimes a shooter.

Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there, lest DA:O, Planescape et al. become action adventure games the assertion that it is integral is a misconception.

You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.

There is a difference between being able to Roleplay in a game and choosing not to, and stripping out the Roleplaying part and not giving the option.

The former is your choice and does not affect the game or what it is in any way.

The latter is no longer a Roleplaying Game.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 18 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[MerinTB]

Pzykozis wrote...
It's not a strawman A roleplaying game is fundamentally a game, and a game is meant to be played, you can argue that point if you want but I wont ever see it your way.

To say that I am aruging that games are not meant to be played is precisely a straw man argument.

I never said that games are not meant to be played.

You arguing that games are meant to be played, when I am NOT arguing that games are not meant to be played, is EXACTLY what a straw man is.

straw man - 
A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.  

My position is NOT that games are not meant to be played, nor is the position of yours that I am attacking that games are meant to be played.

Your position was that role-playing is separate from role-playings games.  That role-playing is not core to role-playing games.

My position is that role-playing is not separate from role-playing games.  That role-playing is core to role-playing games.

How one plays games, or what one does with games, is irrelevant - it is not the point of contention.  It is not what is being argued...

and your attempts to make the argument about what one does with games is, by defintion, a straw man fallacy.

Pzykozis wrote... 
Roleplaying is a desriptor that adds certain connotations to something but what it describes is a game which is the most important part of the item.

Roleplaying is not a descriptor for role-playing game (despite my following your spelling of the word, I'm going to start spelling it right from now on) - role-playing game, or RPG (it's acronym,) is a name, a noun, a compound word, that has a specific meaning.  And, yes, it is defined.

http://www.thefreedi...le-playing game 
http://dictionary.re...le-Playing Game 
http://whatis.techta...laying-game-RPG 
http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game 

I could go on with other reference sites, but here's the key - they all use some wording of the phrase "a game in which the player assumes a role."

I'm not arguing what "assuming a role" is, or what constitutes a "role-playing game" as in what features need to be present.

I'm strictly and absolutely focused on the absurdity of your statement that "role-playing: (the act of assuming a role) is separate from role-playing games (games where players assume roles.)

Everything else you are saying is noise.  I'm not arguing about what ME2 is, nor what needs to be done by a player for them to be "correctly" role-playing.

I am pointing out the sheer rhetorical nonsense that is your statement how you believe role-playing games need have nothing to do with role-playing because role-playing is not part of role-playing games.

Again - 

Pzykozis wrote...
Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're separate things. 

The design of a game to allow players to assume a role, or role-play, is in fact absolutely core to a game being called a role-playing game.

To disagree, to believe your statement that it is not core, that it is a separate thing, is to misunderstand or misdefine what role-playing or role-playing game, or core, or separate, mean.  You are fundamentally wrong on this point.

And everything else you are saying is further obsfucation of the fact.  You could simply admit that you misspoke, that you overextended your intended argument... that people can have fun with games that are called RPGs without ever role-playing, which is true... or that games labeled as RPGs or RPG-hybrids might be mislabled as, though called RPGs, they don't allow or pay hardly any attention to allowing a player to assume a role... of which you would also be correct.

You could admit a mistake and say that you are, in fact, not arguing that role-playing isn't core to role-playing games... but that WHAT defines role-playing, or why games are labeled as RPGs, is in question.  And there you'd have, at worst, solid footing.

But you continue to hoist yourself on your own petard of stubborness.

Role-playing is not core to role-playing games.  Role-playing is separate from role-playing games.

Shooting is not core to first person shooters.  Shooting is separate from first person shooters.

Cards are not core to card games.  Cards are separate from card games.

Pzykozis wrote... 
Really there's an accepted description?

Yes.  There.  Is.  Indeed.

 

Pzykozis wrote...  
So why are we having this conversation in the first place why do people argue over what is an RPG or not?

Once more, what is or is not an RPG is not what I'm arguing against.  I'm arguing that saying role-playing is not core to role-playing games is as much an exercise in word games as saying boards are not core to board games or paint is not core to oil paintings.

That said, I already address this digress - 
people argue over this because they have a wrong definition based on personal experience, and because game companies and PR departments like to do whatever they can to increase sales so they want to use a label for it's positives but not be constrained by what they may see as the label's negatives.  They want to have their cake and eat it, too.  They want to have a vampire's strength and immortality but not the blood-thirst nor vulnerability to sunlight.

Just because so many people misuse the phrase "begs the question" doesn't change what the phrase really means.  Just because half the country calls President Barack Obama a Muslim Communist doesn't make him one, or calling Governor Mitt Romney an inhuman, heartless android make him not human.

Tyranny of the majority doesn't make right.  2+2 is 4, no matter how much torture you do to a man to make him say it's 5.

Modifié par MerinTB, 18 août 2012 - 08:21 .

[Pzykozis]

MerinTB wrote...
To say that I am aruging that games are not meant to be played is precisely a straw man argument.


Roleplaying is not a descriptor for role-playing game (despite my following your spelling of the word, I'm going to start spelling it right from now on) - role-playing game, or RPG (it's acronym,) is a name, a noun, a compound word, that has a specific meaning.  And, yes, it is defined.

http://www.thefreedi...le-playing game 
http://dictionary.re...le-Playing Game 
http://whatis.techta...laying-game-RPG 
http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game 

I could go on with other reference sites, but here's the key - they all use some wording of the phrase "a game in which the player assumes a role."

I'm not arguing what "assuming a role" is, or what constitutes a "role-playing game" as in what features need to be present.

I'm strictly and absolutely focused on the absurdity of your statement that "role-playing: (the act of assuming a role) is separate from role-playing games (games where players assume roles.)

Everything else you are saying is noise.  I'm not arguing about what ME2 is, nor what needs to be done by a player for them to be "correctly" role-playing.

The design of a game to allow players to assume a role, or role-play, is in fact absolutely core to a game being called a role-playing game.

You could admit a mistake and say that you are, in fact, not arguing that role-playing isn't core to role-playing games... but that WHAT defines role-playing, or why games are labeled as RPGs, is in question.  And there you'd have, at worst, solid footing.

Once more, what is or is not an RPG is not what I'm arguing against.  I'm arguing that saying role-playing is not core to role-playing games is as much an exercise in word games as saying boards are not core to board games or paint is not core to oil paintings.

That said, I already address this digress - 
people argue over this because they have a wrong definition based on personal experience, and because game companies and PR departments like to do whatever they can to increase sales so they want to use a label for it's positives but not be constrained by what they may see as the label's negatives.  They want to have their cake and eat it, too.  They want to have a vampire's strength and immortality but not the blood-thirst nor vulnerability to sunlight.

Why drag out that definition...?

It's quite frankly the worst definition of anything ever. They mayaswell have said RPGs see game. Assuming a role describes any game ever (hello there Call of Duty Modern WaRPG), and even if you decide to twist it to the idea of RPing as in taking on a character etc you can do that in far more games than just RPGs infact as in regards to Fits earlier point no game actually blocks you from RPing, if you really want to say that its impossible in certain games I'll still bring up FF not considered to be a RPing game but its still an RPG. The definition simply doesn't work.

The rub of it is simply that RP doesn't describe RPG. At best it applies to every game ever and at worst is just wrong.

The problem with the ideas of card games or board games is they effectively describe whats going on as does the FPS genre (Mirrors Edge aside) the idea that taking on a role only happens in RPGs is.. well I'm not even going to argue that.

Cynical business viewpoint aside wouldn't it be better to market it as an action game you know a genre thats more popular?

Anyway we'll agree to disagree I guess.

Edit: Wait, wait wait, what do you think I'm saying? Of course I'm saying that RPing doesn't define RPGs I've been saying that from the start it's not integral because really thats like saying a video game is needed to be an RPG the definition of RPG by RP is simply absurd because twisted to talk about character creation verges from patently false to every game ever and assuming a role in literal sense is so vague it defines everything ever. It's seperate becaue RP basically just describes video game it says nothing about RPGs.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 18 août 2012 - 09:54 .

[MerinTB]

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Why drag out that definition...?
[/quote]

Because you said there was none.

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
It's quite frankly the worst definition of anything ever.
[/quote]

I can think of at least one I've seen very recently that is certainly far worse.

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
They mayaswell have said RPGs see game.
[/quote]

That is pretty much what you have been saying.  If it is so horrible, why have you made it your stance?

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you
yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying
is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.[/quote]
and
[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Roleplaying is a perfectly valid form of interaction but it doesn't
preclude the fact that games are played in general with or without the
role idea attached.[/quote]

You have been arguing that role-playing games are just games that are meant to be played, and that role-playing is not part of that unless the player makes it part.  And further more, you take that a step further below...

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Assuming a role describes any game ever (hello there Call of Duty Modern WaRPG), and even if you decide to twist it to the idea of RPing as in taking on a character etc you can do that in far more games than just RPGs infact as in regards to [/quote]

By your arguments, role-playings games are just games; the role-playing part is just a descriptor of the type of game, but role-playing (the activity) is not what role-playing (the descriptor) means in describing the type of game, a role-playing game -

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Roleplaying is a desriptor that adds certain connotations to something
but what it describes is a game which is the most important part of the
item.
[/quote]

So even though you've stated that RPGs are your favorite genre -

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed.
Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me.[/quote]

you state that role-playing games are just games that are meant to be played, and that the emphasis should be on that last word, game, in role-playing game -

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Roleplaying is a desriptor that adds certain connotations to something
but what it describes is a game which is the most important part of the
item.
[/quote]

ergo, you very much appear to be arguing that role-playing games are just games.

Hence, your "worst definition ever", RPG see games, is the very definition you seem to be giving role-playing games.

---------------

To be clear, though - I'm not looking for a definition of RPG here.  I don't care what your definition may be, or if you'd agree with mine.

What I'm trying to get you to admit is the slam-your-head-repeatedly-into-a-brick-wall-kinda-obvious point that saying role-playing games have nothing to do with role-playing is up there on the list of pretty sophistic statements.

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Anyway we'll agree to disagree I guess.
[/quote]

I'm not agreeing to disagree.  This isn't a matter of opinion.  This is a matter of language.  You aren't of a different opinion here, you are just plain, flat-out, undeniably wrong on this.

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Edit: Wait, wait wait, what do you think I'm saying?
[/quote]

Mostly this -

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.[/quote]

Which is the sole thing I'm trying to focus on, here.  All the other attempts at diverting the attention from this blunder of an utterance aside, it's the one concrete thing I'm hoping to get you to retract.

---------------

That said, I do think this warrants almost as close scrutiny -

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed.
Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is
wrong there[/quote]

1. Role-playing games are your favorite genre.

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed.
Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is
wrong there[/quote]

2. You've never role-played.  Role-playing doesn't interest you.

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed.
Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is
wrong there[/quote]

3. You acknowledge that something is incongruous between your previous two statements.

Conclusion: Two things - one, you can use a thing for outside of it's intended purposes (playing cards to build a card house) and find it pleasing, and two, you either don't really like the role-playing game genre for what makes it its own genre OR you have two conflicting views (the first being that you don't like role-playing (when, I'd wager, you ARE role-playing in your RPGs but don't consider it such) and the second being that role-playing is only the kind of thing that you personally never do in a role-playing game (which, again, points to a very narrow view of what role-playing is.))

I'm not going to start psychoanalysing you for what you think role-playing means, why you don't like doing it, and what it is you do in role-playing games that you believe isn't role-playing.

I will say, however, that you seem much more interested in fighting against other people's narrow views of what role-playing is... and are chosing your discussion with me to vent these arguments and feelings despite the fact that I'm not engaging in that type of discussion currently.  And, noting that, I will also say that you can save both of us the time in continuing those arguments as that has nothing to do with the following statement of yours -

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...
Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.[/quote]

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pzykozis wrote...

Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

Then they're not roleplaying.  But how people play a game doesn't change what the game is.  How people play a game is irrelevant to what the game is.

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there

Why?  What's wrong?  Nothing you've said here suggests anything is wrong at all.

Why do you think something is wrong?  I posit that you misapplying the roleplaying requirement to be something that needs to be done by the player, rather than something that needs to be allowed by the game. 

It doesn't matter whether roleplaying is required to play a roleplaying game.  It matters whether roleplaying is a
supported playstyle.  In roleplaying games, it is, by definition.  No one is claiming that RPGs require roleplaying by the player.  No one is claiming that only RPGs allow roleplaying.  No one is even claiming that no non-RPGs require roleplaying.

You're arguing against a position no one has advanced.

MerinTB wrote...

It's by Ken Levine, so what kind of game it is doesn't really count.  He transcends genre.   And it was an RPG hybrid.

I don't agree.  It was a shooter.

And I was terrible at it.  Just awful.  I never managed to have enough ammo.  And it was still a great game.

But I could never roleplay it because I was so bad at it.

Pzykozis wrote...

Also I think trying to pass off the idea that roleplaying has an agreed meaning in and of itself is disingenuous at best.

I don't think we need to agree on a definition of roleplaying to see that roleplaying is an integral part of roleplaying games.

(or that JRPGs in general aren't actual RPGs)

Because you can't roleplay in them.  It makes perfect sense.

You say that roleplaying is nothing more than playing a role, but then you misapply even your own shallow definition.  Most games have you assume a role, yes.  And most games are played, yes.  But in most games the player isn't actually playing the role; he's simply inhabiting the role as a gameplay mechanic.  There is play, and there is a role, but there is no playing of that role.

Play is active, would you agree?  You're not really playing something unless you're taking some active part in it.  So while you're obviously playing the game when you play a JRPG, you're not playing the role, because you're not taking any active part in the manifestation of that role.  You're simply following along.  JRPG dialogue is an excellent example of this.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 août 2012 - 04:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pzykozis wrote...

A roleplaying game is fundamentally a game

I deny this.  You'll need to offer some justification for this position if it's going to be central to your argument.

[Wozearly]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

So I'm thinking it might be time to dust off my old copies of Civ, Alpha Centauri, MOO, and the like.  If you have any other favorite titles, I'd appreciate the recommendation.

Given that list, you should consider taking a look at some of Paradox Interactive's grand strategy games.

I'd particularly recommend Europa Universalis 2 or 3 (both are available pretty cheaply) and Crusader Kings 2. Whilst technically they're real-time rather than turn-based, you can do anything while the game is paused and you don't get rushed because of things happening too quickly, so they all tend to play more like turn based games.

[Pzykozis]

MerinTB wrote...

Because you said there was none.

I can think of at least one I've seen very recently that is certainly far worse.

That is pretty much what you have been saying.  If it is so horrible, why have you made it your stance?

You have been arguing that role-playing games are just games that are meant to be played, and that role-playing is not part of that unless the player makes it part.  And further more, you take that a step further below...

By your arguments, role-playings games are just games; the role-playing part is just a descriptor of the type of game, but role-playing (the activity) is not what role-playing (the descriptor) means in describing the type of game, a role-playing game -

So even though you've stated that RPGs are your favorite genre -

you state that role-playing games are just games that are meant to be played, and that the emphasis should be on that last word, game, in role-playing game -

ergo, you very much appear to be arguing that role-playing games are just games.

Hence, your "worst definition ever", RPG see games, is the very definition you seem to be giving role-playing games.

---------------

To be clear, though - I'm not looking for a definition of RPG here.  I don't care what your definition may be, or if you'd agree with mine.

What I'm trying to get you to admit is the slam-your-head-repeatedly-into-a-brick-wall-kinda-obvious point that saying role-playing games have nothing to do with role-playing is up there on the list of pretty sophistic statements.

I'm not agreeing to disagree.  This isn't a matter of opinion.  This is a matter of language.  You aren't of a different opinion here, you are just plain, flat-out, undeniably wrong on this.

Mostly this -

Which is the sole thing I'm trying to focus on, here.  All the other attempts at diverting the attention from this blunder of an utterance aside, it's the one concrete thing I'm hoping to get you to retract.

---------------

That said, I do think this warrants almost as close scrutiny -

1. Role-playing games are your favorite genre.

2. You've never role-played.  Role-playing doesn't interest you.

3. You acknowledge that something is incongruous between your previous two statements.

Conclusion: Two things - one, you can use a thing for outside of it's intended purposes (playing cards to build a card house) and find it pleasing, and two, you either don't really like the role-playing game genre for what makes it its own genre OR you have two conflicting views (the first being that you don't like role-playing (when, I'd wager, you ARE role-playing in your RPGs but don't consider it such) and the second being that role-playing is only the kind of thing that you personally never do in a role-playing game (which, again, points to a very narrow view of what role-playing is.))

I'm not going to start psychoanalysing you for what you think role-playing means, why you don't like doing it, and what it is you do in role-playing games that you believe isn't role-playing.

I will say, however, that you seem much more interested in fighting against other people's narrow views of what role-playing is... and are chosing your discussion with me to vent these arguments and feelings despite the fact that I'm not engaging in that type of discussion currently.  And, noting that, I will also say that you can save both of us the time in continuing those arguments as that has nothing to do with the following statement of yours -

There essentially isn't if you want to use that.

Oh-ho-ho ho.

Except for what I've been saying is that RP doesn't define RPG its a seperate concept that applies to games in general, if it applies to games in general it simply can't be defining to RPGs. I'm not sure how I can reinforce that point more?

No, by my arguement RP doesn't define RPGs because it doesn't define anything,.try describing a sport wherein you only use; "it uses a ball shaped object" as a descriptor.

Of course,  RPGs are a subset of Games, Thereby first and foremost they have to satisfy the fact that they are games before being defined further to apply the label RPG, RP doesn't do this because you have to have a certain amount of role assumption simply to have a goal in a game.

I'm clearly not though, you're just trying to twist my position or simply not understanding.

No its not, I'm pointing out how ludicrous using that definition is.

-----------------------

Alas it's not sophistry though.

No, I'm really not, and it isn't really a matter of language in anyway that precludes arguement, besides if language is wrong tyranny of majority right?

Yeah but that arguement is one in the same, they're seperate things because if they weren't the RPG genre defined by the idea of RP doesn't describe a genre at all, it'd be synonymous with video game or just game. I'm not diverting at all, all the points I've made are relevant.

----------------------

Again a RPG is a genre of game and I'm playing the game, this goes back to a previous point you can argue the intended use of RPGs if you want I still stick with the idea that it is a subset of games and as such its fundementl purpose is to be played , that arguement will go nowhere.

Roleplaying as in creation of and continuance of an incharacter personality, the construction of a seperate identity or what have you, is the arguement I was putting forward originally, perhaps I should have outlined that but the idea of 'assuming a role' as a core or integral descriptor for a genre is also laughable at best.

Are we currently in a void? It's not like my post was met with any kind of attempt of understanding you're not the only person disagreeing with me so I have other points to make in my posts, I'm sorry I can't only be loving to you Merin.

Now I am going to agree to disagree regardless of whether you do or do not.

@Sylvius, an RPG in the sense of a game genre is a subset of gaming, thereby it has to satisfy the principle of being a game before it can be described to fit the label of RPG, it therefore is, descriptions of how the game plays aside (since thats what genres are, descriptions of how games play) fundementally a game.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 19 août 2012 - 10:40 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

I am an old fan of tabletop RPGs and I have 2 completely distinct definitions of videogame RPGs based on different aspects of the tabletop games.  The definitions are (more-or-less)
1) character skills - the character's ability to succeed or fail at a task depend not on the player's skill at manipulating the controls but on the character's statistics as developed by the player's strategy and applied according t the player's tactics.
2) character personality - the game is designed in a manner which allows a player to define a personality for the character with a significant amount of the game allowing players to make decisions (selected or free-form) based on the personality -note if using selected decisions then the player needs to know when making the selection what the character will do as a result (if not then the player isn't in control) 

to clarify and build on my previous definitions 
definition 1) - a key part of this definition is the word "character" -if what you are controlling does not constitute a character it is not an RPG.
Another note is that while the character's physical and knowledge based skills are determined by stats the other mental skills of strategy, tactics, patience, perseverence, etc are (usually) the abilities of the player

definition 2) as a game is a commercial product  then it is judged on whether it is "designed to enable" players to significantly role-play,
The fact that many players choose not to role-play is an irrelevence to whether the game is an RPG or not.
Similarly a player who chooses to "roleplay" an action-adventure doesn't change whether it was designed to be played that way

[MerinTB]

Pzykozis wrote...
There essentially isn't if you want to use that.

This is why I am accusing you of sophistry.

Sophistry is making what on the surface seems like plausible arguments but that are actually decieving or misleading.

There ARE defintions of role-playing games.  Enough so that authoratative bodies (dictionaries, encyclopedias, places that sell games or describe types of games) list said definitions - and those definitions are largely in agreement as well as complementary.

But you think the definition is meaningless, pointless, you don't like it, so there for "essentially" there doesn't exist a definition.

This. Is. Sophistry.

Also, this is why I accuse you of being selfish.  You dislike role-playing (by your own admission) and you dislike the definition of role-playing game (again you have said as much) therefore, by your own personal fiat, the definition "essentially does not exist."

You are not the arbitor of what is or is not a definitiion.  If you,  and you alone, think you are the judge of what is and what is not... then you are teetering dangerously close to solipsism.  And if THAT is where you are arguing from, then your position is as self-centered as is possible and there will be no correcting you.

Pzykozis wrote...
Except for what I've been saying is that RP doesn't define RPG its a seperate concept that applies to games in general, if it applies to games in general it simply can't be defining to RPGs. I'm not sure how I can reinforce that point more?

I can help you here, easily.  You are starting with a false premise.  Sylvius said this to you earlier, but I'll repeat it - and it goes back to what I've been trying very hard to get you to agree with - because you CAN do something with an item (use a large dictionary as a doorstop, a t-shirt as a dust rag, Monopoly currency as bookmarks, a character generator for an MMO to create images of characters in a story you are writing) doesn't make that unintended use of said item defining to that item (we don't describe dictionaries as weights able to hold open doors.)

Because you CAN do something in a game (playing Space Invaders, you create a personailty for the guy manning the weapon that is shooting down the aliens, and you play-out in your head all the guy's motivations and dialog during your game) doesn't mean the game was designed with that in mind.  Just like something the game is designed to allow you to do (play a Chaotic Evil character in Baldur's Gate 2, craft-sell-buy items in an MMO, bring along a follower in Fallout 3) doesn't mean a player on an individual play of said game (or ever playing said games) will engage in such activity.

Hence -
while you CAN pretend all you want about MasterChief in Halo, the game gives you all but nothing for you to role-play with.  The game is not designed to allow you to create a personality, to make decisions, to mold and shape the character in all but the most superficial of ways (which weapons you carry, you combat tactics, which vehicles you use.)
It is not an RPG, and very few are the people who'd try to claim it is such (with those few being the sophists arguing against role-playing having a definition)
And -
while the game Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is designed to allow you to role-play in great detail (make your own character, down to race, class and appearance; make choices in the game that affect the story; choose how your character changes and advances) you CAN avoid engaging in role-playing the character by taking a default character, playing the game as strictly a third-person action adventure and arbitrarly without any care to consistant character development make decisions in the game based solely on what you, the player, want to see happen with the character you play either just being a tool or a representation of you in the game (which, most would agree, the latter is still role-playing but I won't argue that point.)

You cannot argue your point further because you start from a flawed premise...

the ability to role-play, or the decision not to, with any game does NOT make said game a role-playing game or not a role-playing game.

What you are (missing, ignoring, purposefully avoiding, I don't know...) is that what makes a game a role-playing game is the INTENT of the DESIGN for the game to ALLOW FOR and FOCUS ON role-playing.  Not the USE that PEOPLE later give said game.

A mattress is made with the INTENT of the DESIGN to ALLOW FOR  and FOCUS ON making a bed for people to sleep on.  The USE that later PEOPLE give the mattress, be it a temporary wall, a cushion to land on, something soft to place delicate items on for a move... doesn't change the fact that it is a mattress and it was created to be part of a bed for people to sleep on.

End use doesn't define an item in all but the single instance of said end-use.  A t-shirt stripped into pieces of cloth is, indeed, now a dish rag.  But that's not what it was made to be, not it's intended use, and the fact that THIS ONE T-SHIRT is now a dish rag doesn't make all t-shirts dish rags.

YOU, by YOURSELF, not role-playing in your RPG does not make ALL RPG's no longer about role-playing.

Self-centered.  Sophistry.

Pzykozis wrote...
No, by my arguement RP doesn't define RPGs because it doesn't define anything,.try describing a sport wherein you only use; "it uses a ball shaped object" as a descriptor.

I really don't want to try and follow your attempts at logic anymore along this line, except to point out, AGAIN, that what your are describing here is exactly what YOU have been engaging in.

YOU are the one who is trying to define role-playing games by "the ability to play", which is as useless and overly simplistic as describing a sport (say baseball or golf) as "it uses a ball shaped object."

The absolute reduction to an aspect that only describes part of the thing (role-playing games can be played, golf uses a ball) doesn't actually mean anything.

After all, both a tuba and a person can be played.  Does that make them games?  No.  Such an argument, a play on words that decieves and misleads, is the kind of rhetoric that you are engaging in.

You cannot rail against it while engaging in it.

To self-centered and sophistry we might be adding hypocrisy at this point.

Pzykozis wrote...
besides if language is wrong tyranny of majority right?

Tu quqoe again.  Trying to use my own words against me.  It is presumptuous of me, perhaps, but I am going to make that leap that until you google Mills you don't personally have any real idea what "tyranny of the majority" means.

You are once more engagin in sophistry if you are railing against dictionary definitions.  There is a logical fallacy of appealing to authority, true, but that is not the same thing as tyranny of the majority...

and the trick here is that how language works is that we all have to share what the words mean so we can understand each other... and we use, as our authority, references like dictionaries.  When all the references, more or less, agree then that is the standard we use for communication.

Because you, an individual, don't like the definition, doesn't mean everyone else should chuck it.

Please stop trying to borrow philosophy and speak on more things you clearly don't understand.  Please.  The digression from the point is bad enough without trying to help you understand utilitariansim, dialetic, rhetoric and logical fallacies.

Pzykozis wrote...
Yeah but that arguement is one in the same, they're seperate things because if they weren't the RPG genre defined by the idea of RP doesn't describe a genre at all, it'd be synonymous with video game or just game. I'm not diverting at all, all the points I've made are relevant.

Again, sophistry. 

Here begins the subtle twisting to try and bring your original arguement, about role-playing having nothing to do with RPGs, to trying to say that you meant that role-playing is not the same thing as role-playing games.

Role-playing != role-playing games, true.
but
(role-playing != role-playing games) != (neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things)

Nice try, though.

Also -

you spend an inordinate amount of time defining RPGs as just games, they are just meant to be played...
and then an equal amount of time railing against any definition that equats to RPG see games.

You cannot agree with yourself.

Pzykozis wrote...
Now I am going to agree to disagree regardless of whether you do or do not.

And here, again, you fail to understand the terms you use.

There is no agreement between us.  Not yet, at least.  You cannot decide for both of us that we are agreeing on something.  I absolutely am NOT agreeing.

Words have meaning.  You cannot arbitrarily assign your own personal meanings to words and expect others to take you seriously.

We are not in agreement.  If you want to concede, or just give up... that is your choice.  But I am not consenting to accept your statement, "neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things", as something we CAN disagree about.  It isn't an opinion - it is a false statement.  Your statement was false.

There is no agreeing to have different views on that.

[MerinTB]

Maybe this will help -

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
It's by Ken Levine, so what kind of game it is doesn't really count.  He transcends genre.   And it was an RPG hybrid.

I don't agree.  It was a shooter.

And I was terrible at it.  Just awful.  I never managed to have enough ammo.  And it was still a great game.

But I could never roleplay it because I was so bad at it.

You aren't saying it wasn't a role-playing game simply because you were bad at it, were you?

I've actually never played it, but I did love it's spiritual successor so I can imagine what it was like.

I think I may allow too loose a definition for "RPG hybrid", but what I meant (which may or may not be an established defintion) is that when a game is a hybrid of genres (say FPS and RPG) that it takes elements from both to make something a bit different than either.  For SS2, it looks to me like it took the first person and shooting from an FPS (there's more to FPS than this, but let's not go down that road) and the character advancement and skills selection over time from cRPGs.

As when combining elements gives you something that the individual elements themselves didn't have, I think hybriding games can give you something that either pure genre wouldn't have, either - or, to put it another way, a game that is an RPG hybrid doesn't necessarily qualify as an RPG.

If you can follow.  The logic is a bit muddy and it'd probably take me a few pages to explain properly.

[Pzykozis]

MerinTB wrote...
There is no agreeing to have different views on that.

Well thats unfortunate for you then I guess.

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

...

If you wish to become good at something, practice is always necessary.  Practice is simply another word for "experience."  The first "FPS" game I played that required mouselook was an older game called Uprising.  Until then, I would flat out refuse to play FPS style games with the mouse because it was clunky and something I was not familiar with.  Uprising was a game I wanted to play, however, so I pushed through and eventually got comfortable with it, to the points where I would only play FPS games with mouselook.
...

I've come in somewhat late to this part of the conversation but wanted to throw in my 2 cents about practice and how I think RPGs should work.  To me a good RPG is one that encourages role-playing, and where the rules of the game are primarily to adjudicate whether or not a particular player action works.  As such a good ruleset should be relatively free of the practice effect (which would suggest that on this criteria D&D is not a good ruleset).

So to me an RPG is really a simulation (usually a simulation of a fantasy world with magic).  Practice is important but it should be practice in reasoning about how the imaginary world works rather than practice with the ruleset. Most CRPGs (and many PnP RPGs) strongly reward practice with the ruleset which is a bad thing.  It's the difference between coming up with a cool way of resolving a problem (I've been grabbed by a wyvern so I change into a hummingbird to escape its clutches) and manipulating rules to improve your chances (I've figured out how you can stack armor bonuses of different types, but not the same type, to maximize my armor class and I avoid being grabbed in the first place).

This doesn't mean I don't enjoy games that you need to practice at to get better at, but it does imply that their focus isn't just on role-playing.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 19 août 2012 - 07:05 .

[MerinTB]

Pzykozis wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
There is no agreeing to have different views on that.

Well thats unfortunate for you then I guess.

When there is true and there is false, I guess it is my "misfortune" to not allow false to be called true.

"Role-playing is not core to role-playing games - role-playing is an unrelated thing that doesn't define role-playing games." That is a false statement.  I will not agree to accept that you believe it to be true.

Subset C, which is part of Set A and Set B, is defined as part of Set A and Set B.  To then say that Subset C is not in Set A is false.  If it is unfortunate for me that I refuse to accept that this is a matter of opinion, then that is a misfortune I gladly bear.

[Nomen Mendax]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

A roleplaying game is fundamentally a game

I deny this.  You'll need to offer some justification for this position if it's going to be central to your argument.

I'd say it depends on how you define game (OED - a form of play or sport ...) and hopefully we can agree that roleplaying games are a form of play - not that this helps Pzykozis ' argument.

So to me a roleplaying game is a form of play where the participants roleplay.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 19 août 2012 - 11:58 .

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I deny this.  You'll need to offer some justification for this position if it's going to be central to your argument.

I'd say that a roleplaying GAME is  a game because it has game in the name.  Yes, that's right, the big 'G' in RPG stands for 'game', or in 'digital' RPGs, (whether that's console or computer) it stands for Video-Game.  

EA makes video games.  Activision makes video games.  Bioware made 'standard' games before making RPGs.  

Why would companies like EA (Battlefield, Need for Speed) or Bioware (whose first game was Shattered Steel, which Bioware ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE call a 'Simulation game') suddenly make a non-game.  That's like the Microsoft Office team making a new Halo, or EA creating a car?   

RPGs are video games because game companies make them, game companies call them 'games' and the vast vast majority of gamers who play what they consider RPGs call them GAMES too.  What you in your made up world believe is up to you, but most gamers think RPGs are games, and think Mass Effect and Dragon Age are RPGs. Disagree, sure, but know that your opinion is not automatically correct.

I can prove my point because most gamers agree with me, hence why in game stores, game websites, and game forums, Mass Effect, Deus Ex and The Witcher are called roleplaying games. Can you prove yours?

Modifié par Cimeas, 19 août 2012 - 08:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

I think I may allow too loose a definition for "RPG hybrid", but what I meant (which may or may not be an established defintion) is that when a game is a hybrid of genres (say FPS and RPG) that it takes elements from both to make something a bit different than either.  For SS2, it looks to me like it took the first person and shooting from an FPS (there's more to FPS than this, but let's not go down that road) and the character advancement and skills selection over time from cRPGs.

System Shock 2 was certainly an unusual shooter, but since I don't count character advacement and skill selection as core requirements of an RPG, I cannot then assign the RPG label based on their presence.

As when combining elements gives you something that the individual elements themselves didn't have, I think hybriding games can give you something that either pure genre wouldn't have, either - or, to put it another way, a game that is an RPG hybrid doesn't necessarily qualify as an RPG.

I don't really see the value is hybrid genres when we haven't yet worked out what the actual genres are.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

I'd say that a roleplaying GAME is  a game because it has game in the name.  Yes, that's right, the big 'G' in RPG stands for 'game', or in 'digital' RPGs, (whether that's console or computer) it stands for Video-Game.  

Let's define "game" and see if RPGs fit that definition.

I generally argue that they don't because roleplaying games don't have winning conditions, while games do.  The presence of winning conditions are part of what makes a game a game rather than just an activity.  But there's no way to win a roleplaying game.  Success or failure is self-determined, and the point of a roleplaying game is the play, not the result.

Is a sport still a game if you stop keeping score, or is it just practice?

Bioware made 'standard' games before making RPGs.

And before they made any games at all, they made medical simulators (their first product was the Gastroenterological Patient Simulator).  I don't see how that's any more relevant than what you just said.

Why would companies like EA (Battlefield, Need for Speed) or Bioware (whose first game was Shattered Steel, which Bioware ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE call a 'Simulation game') suddenly make a non-game. 

Because they wanted to?  Why does this matter?

RPGs are video games because game companies make them, game companies call them 'games' and the vast vast majority of gamers who play what they consider RPGs call them GAMES too.  What you in your made up world believe is up to you, but most gamers think RPGs are games, and think Mass Effect and Dragon Age are RPGs. Disagree, sure, but know that your opinion is not automatically correct.

Nor is yours.  Nor is the majority's.  Why don't we investigate the issue rather than just casting aspersions?

I can prove my point because most gamers agree with me, hence why in game stores, game websites, and game forums, Mass Effect, Deus Ex and The Witcher are called roleplaying games.

I don't think you understand what proof is.

Can you prove yours?

I've certainly made a stronger argument than you have.

If roleplaying games were not games, incidentally, where would you suggest they be sold?  Is there some other retailer that you think would be more appropriate?  Do you see now how you haven't proven anything?

[twincast]

Pzykozis wrote...

Why drag out that definition...?

It's quite frankly the worst definition of anything ever. They mayaswell have said RPGs see game. Assuming a role describes any game ever (hello there Call of Duty Modern WaRPG), and even if you decide to twist it to the idea of RPing as in taking on a character etc you can do that in far more games than just RPGs infact as in regards to Fits earlier point no game actually blocks you from RPing, if you really want to say that its impossible in certain games I'll still bring up FF not considered to be a RPing game but its still an RPG. The definition simply doesn't work.

The rub of it is simply that RP doesn't describe RPG. At best it applies to every game ever and at worst is just wrong.

...

Edit: Wait, wait wait, what do you think I'm saying? Of course I'm saying that RPing doesn't define RPGs I've been saying that from the start it's not integral because really thats like saying a video game is needed to be an RPG the definition of RPG by RP is simply absurd because twisted to talk about character creation verges from patently false to every game ever and assuming a role in literal sense is so vague it defines everything ever. It's seperate becaue RP basically just describes video game it says nothing about RPGs.

The same ridiculous argument could be made about strategy games since every game requires some sort of strategy to beat and of course the absolute classic: simulation games; every game simulates something! In fact that probably goes for every game genre ever that doesn't list at least RTvTB, FPvTP, mode of movement and means of achieving your goal (e.g. shooter and/or brawler). After all every game can be an adventure and every awesome button can be percieved as action!

[MerinTB]

twincast wrote...
The same ridiculous argument could be made about strategy games since every game requires some sort of strategy to beat and of course the absolute classic: simulation games; every game simulates something! In fact that probably goes for every game genre ever that doesn't list at least RTvTB, FPvTP, mode of movement and means of achieving your goal (e.g. shooter and/or brawler). After all every game can be an adventure and every awesome button can be percieved as action!

Yes.

Hence, the sophistry.  If you play with words and possible meanings of words and synonyms and such, you are engagin in sophistry.

Exactly your examples here, specifically of strategy, simulation or adventure games, shows that following Pzykozis's "logic" is an exercise in sophistry.

Nail on head.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

How people feel about it is not irrelevant to the definition though. You may feel they're wrong in defining an RPG as a game because you think RPGs don't have winning conditions, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people playing the game do see a "winning condition"-- when you beat the game and the credits roll. Even if you're right that this isn't something inherent to an RPG, you can see that people are imbuing it with the qualities of a game anyway, thus making it a game for them.

I'm not denying that many Roleplaying Games can be played as games.  That's also not relevant to my point.