332 réponses à ce sujet

[zyntifox]

Emloch wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I am not sure if I would call The Witcher an rpg though. More like an actionadventure game with some rpg elements in it. You can`t create your own character, after all.

The last "proper" rpg I played was Drakensang (+the sequel). Anything after that has mostly been acion games in disguise,

Respectfully, I have to disagree. Although I agree chracter creation should be part of an RPG, I don't think it's criteria. There have been many RPG's is which you don't create the main character. Planescape:Torment is just one example. And whether you like them ot not, the Final Fantasy series is hard to deny being part of the RPG genre. There is no character creation there either.

Personally, I feel the the Witcher series is one of the last true RPG series out there. Yes, the combat is action based but that style of combat is a welcomed element. Games have evolved from a technological standpoint and I think the "point and click" combat sytem is a thing of the past. And I'm actually happy about that. The stories are great, NPC interaction is engrossing, the crafting is complex and the skill/ability system is a solid as they come.

I haven't played The Witcher 2, only been informed on this board about it. I agree fully with you that just because you play a fixed character it isn't an RPG. Whether it is a RPG or an interactive action/adventure game, such as Mass effect, depends on the level of control of the protagonist. But from what i've heard The Witcher 2 does the same thing as Mass effect, that is, assumes control of "your" character and talks and acts. Now, systems within a game such as crafting, skills etc, are very good at enhancing the roleplaying experience but none of that matters if the game keeps assuming control of your character. In my opinion as soon as that happens a game is no longer a RPG.

The Witcher 2 may be a great game but if i would play it i wouldn't play it as a RPG but rather a interactive game. And as i enjoyed Mass Effect as such i might enjoy The Witcher 2 as well.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't really see how?
To make a in-character decision, I only need to see and hear what my character is experiencing.

You also need to know what his undersatnding is of his own abilities, and how he understands the rules of the reality in which he lives.

If he's a lousy shot, he'll make gunplay-related decisions accordingly.  Whether you're a lousy shot should never matter, because you don't exist within his reality.

I still don't see why stats would be needed here?
My character being a lousy shot can shown by making the shooting mechanics harder, like increasing the spread, reducing reload speed, etc.

I rather learn what my character is good at by actually doing something, than be told by a character sheet.
 

[MichaelStuart]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I still don't see why stats would be needed here?
My character being a lousy shot can shown by making the shooting mechanics harder, like increasing the spread, reducing reload speed, etc.

I rather learn what my character is good at by actually doing something, than be told by a character sheet.
 

As I said on the previous page (I swear, I always end up as the last person...)

That doesn't show your character being a lousy shot.

That shows YOU being a lousy shot.

Your limts are imposed on the character.

I should mention I am not a beliver in the separation of player and character.

[zyntifox]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I should mention I am not a beliver in the separation of player and character.

I confess, I'm not sure what to say to that. It seems like with that view you could only roleplay one way, if you're not creating a separate character.

Perhaps Sylvius has better points (than I).

Be careful, saying Sylvius name three times summons him.

[Cimeas]

 Haha, yes Sylvius is very strong in his beliefs.   

Personally an RPG is any game that has 3 things.

1. Some significant choices that affect the story.  
2. Character progression of some kind (levels, exp)
3. Side quests


Things I expect from all action adventure games or RPGs are atmosphere and interesting characters. 

[MichaelStuart]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I should mention I am not a beliver in the separation of player and character.

I confess, I'm not sure what to say to that. It seems like with that view you could only roleplay one way, if you're not creating a separate character.

Perhaps Sylvius has better points (than I).

If I want to roleplay differently, I just change my motivation.
Before I start my character, I decide what my motivation is going to be. Every decision I make is done in accordance with my motivation.
All I'm saying is that I don't belive having complete control over a character during gameplay, reduces the ability to role play.

[Get Magna Carter]

Cstaf wrote...

For the last 10-12 years the gaming industry, in my opinion, have been quite liberal in what is considered a RPG. I have always considered that RPGs are games where the game and player together creates a story. But for the last decade there seems to have been a shift thoward telling this story by through cinematic at the cost of player input. Now, i do not hate or love this shift because i like both types of games but for very different reasons. But i do play these types of games very different.

The question i have that i think would be interesting hearing from you guys is:
At what point does a RPG turn into another genre? That is, what are the fundamental requirement you have for a game to be considered an RPG. I've bolded the "you" for a reason because i do consider this to be something subjective.

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) 

[wsandista]

Cstaf wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I should mention I am not a beliver in the separation of player and character.

I confess, I'm not sure what to say to that. It seems like with that view you could only roleplay one way, if you're not creating a separate character.

Perhaps Sylvius has better points (than I).

Be careful, saying Sylvius name three times summons him.

If he is deep in meditation in his Sanctum Sanctorum, then you will be contacted by Wong instead.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I still don't see why stats would be needed here?
My character being a lousy shot can shown by making the shooting mechanics harder, like increasing the spread, reducing reload speed, etc.

I rather learn what my character is good at by actually doing something, than be told by a character sheet.
 

As I said on the previous page (I swear, I always end up as the last person...)

That doesn't show your character being a lousy shot.

That shows YOU being a lousy shot.

Your limts are imposed on the character.

This doesn't have to be the case.

If the shooting mechanics are more difficult with a poorer shot and easier with a character that is a better shot, it's still a reflection of that character's ability with said weapons.

[Direwolf0294]

For me, an RPG is all about being able to craft your own story. Things like stats and loot don't bother in the slightest. I think I actually prefer RPGs that do away with those things, like ME2 does for the most part, because they're so confining. I hate the idea that my character avoids an attack because they've got +7 avoidance and scored a lucky dice throw. I hate the idea that I hit another character for the same reason. It's just so immersion breaking and boring. I put up with those things in the DA games because they're also great when it comes to what I consider an RPG to be, that is to say they're great at story, but I wish those things didn't exist in the games.

And now I'm going to throw out what I know will be an increadibly unpopular opinion, I think PnP rpgs have done irreparable harm to computer rpgs. Because of PnP rpgs all computer rpgs are basically forced to be full of stats and loot and often times are expected to use a turn based combat system or a system based off DnD rules and if a game steps outside that mold it's instantly labled as not an rpg. It's like if every RTS game based itself off chess, and if they don't the fans chuck a hissy fit.

[Realmzmaster]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

For me, an RPG is all about being able to craft your own story. Things like stats and loot don't bother in the slightest. I think I actually prefer RPGs that do away with those things, like ME2 does for the most part, because they're so confining. I hate the idea that my character avoids an attack because they've got +7 avoidance and scored a lucky dice throw. I hate the idea that I hit another character for the same reason. It's just so immersion breaking and boring. I put up with those things in the DA games because they're also great when it comes to what I consider an RPG to be, that is to say they're great at story, but I wish those things didn't exist in the games.

And now I'm going to throw out what I know will be an increadibly unpopular opinion, I think PnP rpgs have done irreparable harm to computer rpgs. Because of PnP rpgs all computer rpgs are basically forced to be full of stats and loot and often times are expected to use a turn based combat system or a system based off DnD rules and if a game steps outside that mold it's instantly labled as not an rpg. It's like if every RTS game based itself off chess, and if they don't the fans chuck a hissy fit.

Then what do you suggest should be put in place of stats? There is a difference between character skill and player skill. If my character avoids an arrow because I as the player push the button fast enough and cause my character to dodge that is player skill. If my character dodges the arrow  because the character is good at dodging that is character skill. RPGs are suppose to be about character skill and how the character has been built not how fast I can press a button.. 

As far as p n p systems doing harm to computer rpgs I diagree with that. Without  p n p rpgs I doubt there would be any computer rpgs. It was the people who were into p n p rpgs that made computer rpgs successful as a genre especially wrpgs. Those people could now play without having to get the group together or play in between group sessions.

Turn based combat systems and realtime with pause do not rely on the player's reaction time which makes those games more accessible to a wider range of gamers of all ages. In my opinion having a game accessible to more people is very good.

[zyntifox]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This doesn't have to be the case.

If the shooting mechanics are more difficult with a poorer shot and easier with a character that is a better shot, it's still a reflection of that character's ability with said weapons.

Mass Effect 1 sniping?

I see what you mean. The problem with that is, the character will always, always be limited by what the player can do in that situation.

It may go from "shoot while you're passing your target on the weapon's figure-eight trail" to "aim & shoot," but even then, if the player is no good at snping, the character is limited by it.


EDIT: and, looking back over this thread, that seems to be pretty much the defining issue here: player skill vs. character skill

Urk, and that is a problem for me since i am not a natural gamer. If my wardens ability to hit anything was decided by my skill rather than my characters skill i would have never made it passed the Kocari wilds. That is why i play Mass Effect on the easy difficulty (don't you dare judge me! ).

[Sad Dragon]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This doesn't have to be the case.

If
the shooting mechanics are more difficult with a poorer shot and easier
with a character that is a better shot, it's still a reflection of that
character's ability with said weapons.

Mass Effect 1 sniping?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

I
see what you mean. The problem with that is, the character will always,
always be limited by what the player can do in that situation.

It
may go from "shoot while you're passing your target on the weapon's
figure-eight trail" to "aim & shoot," but even then, if the player
is no good at snping, the character is limited by it.


EDIT: and, looking back over this thread, that seems to be pretty much the defining issue here: player skill vs. character skill

First things first: My thoughts on what is an RPG or not can be found HERE (A bit old but I would say that it still holds true to about 90% if not more.)

Now as to the topic quoted part:
As EntropicAngel said above, ME1's weapons in general followed the idea that if your character was bad at a weapon the mechanics would show it. I think the original Deus Ex went one step further (though I could be wrong, was a while since I played the game) and made autotargeting kick in after a certain point to aid you as your skill was high enough.

The problem in this context is the stats part though but I think you could do this with invisible stats (as statless as a computer game can be without relying purely on playerskill) . The more you use a weapon sucessfully the less awkward the game mechanics become and it may even start to help you a bit. Say you are a few pixles to far left when you shoot well you still hit cause of the aids as your character is skilled enough to make this hit.

The V.A.T.S as they are used in Fallout 3 is also an interesting mechanic, but an unfair one the way it is implemented. I personally like to play FPS-games and i am the kind of player that preferes slowfiering -- but heavy damage -- weapons where your aim is the deciding factor if you live or die. To me the V.A.T.S was a waste of time (unless I was in a really tight possition as it alowed me the time to think). My FPS background let me focus on other things instead, effectivly giving my character more skillpoint that my friend who used V.A.T.S.

You could combine the training mechanic with a V.A.T.S mechanic giving more controll over the fight depending on PC skill rather then Player Skill.


From what I gathered this came from a discussion about if Stats are required or not -- and for those who read the blogentry i linked you will find I dont think stats are required to make something an RPG. Stats are really usefull however as they let you shape the character and lets the game know how to handle the mechanics. How exactly to make a freeform RPG experience on a computer is something a bit more tricky -- but the mear fact that freeform PnP exists should indicate that stats are not required for a RPG.

EDIT: For more indepth thoughts on Stats here is my second blogpost: Stats?

EDIT 2: Seems the bioware blog has exploted so the stats blogpost is a bit of a mess atm. O.o;
EDIT 3: Found what was wrong, blog is workign now -- formating needs work but you can read it now

EDIT 4: Blog is working correctly again.

-TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 12 août 2012 - 09:34 .

[zyntifox]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Interesting read Sad Dragon. I have a question regarding one of your elements you discuss in your blog, namely the dialogue. I have always drawn the line of whether a game is a RPG or not if the game is "assuming direct control" ( read that in Harbingers voice!). Now, DA:O did this a couple of times in the cinematic but i wasn't terribly bothered about it since the warden never did anything that can be classyfied as gamebreaking, in my opinion. Auto-dialogue on the other hand is gamebreaking for me no matter what the protagonist is saying.

But back to the question of dialogue. Do you consider the paraphrasing, that is not knowing exacly what the protagonist will say, takes away sufficient control of your character for it not to be a RPG? For me it stops being a RPG with paraphrasing and instead it turns to a interactive game.

Edit: snipping quotes

Modifié par Cstaf, 12 août 2012 - 10:15 .

[Sad Dragon]

Cstaf wrote...

Interesting read Sad Dragon. I have a question regarding one of your elements you discuss in your blog, namely the dialogue. I have always drawn the line of whether a game is a RPG or not if the game is "assuming direct control" ( read that in Harbingers voice!). Now, DA:O did this a couple of times in the cinematic but i wasn't terribly bothered about it since the warden never did anything that can be classyfied as gamebreaking, in my opinion. Auto-dialogue on the other hand is gamebreaking for me no matter what the protagonist is saying.

But back to the question of dialogue. Do you consider the paraphrasing, that is not knowing exacly what the protagonist will say, takes away sufficient control of your character for it not to be a RPG? For me it stops being a RPG with paraphrasing and instead it turns to a interactive game.

First i would like to say I automatically read "assuming direct control" in Harbingers voice XD

As for the paraphrasing: Some games have made it work -- sadly Bioware seems to have a lot of trouble with the paraphrasing sadly. There are three games the comes to mind that did it well enought that it didnt bothere me throughout the game. These are Alpha Protocol, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and The Witcher 2.  AP and DE:HR had a much different approach to the paraphrasing then what we have seen in Bioware Games -- The Witcher 2 is closer to how Bioware does it.

As it is the closet to the Bioware formulae lets talk about The Witcher 2 first.
This suffers a bit from having a preestablished character, as such the autodialogue didnt bother me so much as it was part of his the overarching personality of the character. The paraphrases here were also a bit longer then the 1-2 words of the Bioware conversation-wheel which allowed for some more clarity in what you wanted to say. This extra clarity allowed for more 'control' over what the character said and even the auto dialogue felt in line with the general mood of the choice you made.

On the other side of the spectrum is Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex: Human Revolution that doesn't have any words in their version of the paraphrasing mechanic -- instead opting for using intent. This I felt worked surprisingly well as the exact words isnt as important as what im trying to achieve -- besides, the words are never mine to begin with. This method did away with the confusion that some of biowares tries at Paraphrasing has ran into, where you think you know what your character is going to say but they instead say something that might even be the opposit of what you thought -- im looking at you Dragon Age 2.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution took this one step further, iirc, and let you see the actual line you where going to say if you hoovered over a choice long enough -- though this still didnt take into account the autodialogue, but the intent was already there so again i never had a problem with it.

The main issue with paraphrasing might be that at first glance it take away the choice of personailty from the player. I dont really think this is that big of an issue. Geralt might be the most fixed character of the once I have described but you still get to control him and much of his philosophical stance is still up to you. Personally I feel that a voiced protagonists take away more personality from the player than the paraphrasing.

I feel that autodialogue can work. For me it is more how it is implemented that is the problem. If it is still tied in with the choice you made I have no trouble with it.

Ex:
Player choose to be agressive: "Be quiet! I am tired of hearing your voice"
NPC: "You cant--"
PC: "I said, be quiet!"

Mass effect might have handled this with an interupt but I would have no problem with it being done with autodialogue as long as I have made the intent clear. It can make the dialogue feel more natural (if they can get the interuption timing right) and I still feel like I was the one in control.

If however there are no ties to the choice there can be a disconnect. Now I'm ok with some of this myself as you can use it for basic exposition. To use the example above again:

Player choose to be agressive: "Be quiet! I am tired of hearing your voice"
NPC: "You cant--"
PC: "I said, be quiet! You think you can walk all over the folks down there, and that everyone would love your for it? People are starving and you think you are untouchable, well let me show you just how untouchable you are..."

I would still be OK with something like that myself. If however the autodialogue were to become friendly with the NPC, then I would considere that autodialogue flawed beyond repair (with the exception of a compleet rewrite).


I should probably stop now before this gets way to long XD

-TSD

[Get Magna Carter]

Sad Dragon wrote...

First things first: My thoughts on what is an RPG or not can be found HERE (A bit old but I would say that it still holds true to about 90% if not more.)

Had a quick read through
As an old-school p-n-p RPGamer who played D&D in the late 70s I disagree about stories being essential - the story-less hack-and-slash dungeon crawl is a valid form of RPG albeit a poor one  (a GOOD RPG requires a story).

(the bit on "Characte customisation" in the follow-up reminded me about my enjoyment of Morrowind with it's open tasks for players to find the best way to achieve with their characters)

[Sad Dragon]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Had a quick read through
As an old-school p-n-p RPGamer who played D&D in the late 70s I disagree about stories being essential - the story-less hack-and-slash dungeon crawl is a valid form of RPG albeit a poor one  (a GOOD RPG requires a story).

Not saying you are wrong as I dont think there is 1 set answer to this but I just want to clarify myself a bit.

Just having a dungeon crawl with only combat and no character interactions makes its more a 'board game' than an RPG in my book. If you 'roleplayed' the characters doing a dungeon crawl however I think  it is still an RPG but the focus is not on a plot driven story that's for sure -- unless you have a good plot reason for doing the dungeon crawl -- but rather the characters.

I should however say that when it comes to colaborative RPGs (one DM+Players or just a bunch of players making up their own story) you don't need a plot driven story. Some of my best memories of NWN is roleplaying around a campfire -- no big plots, monsters or even loot involved.

I still do not think that Diablo 2 or 3 (havent played the first so cant say but i think you can include it as well) is an RPG. Its an action-adventure to me.

There are a few boardgames out there that I think can make it a bit clearer:
Talisman from Fantasy Flight is classified as an adventure game not a RPG
Drakborger (old swedish game) currently named Dungeonquest, now also by Fantasy Flight is essentially a big bad dungeon crawl and that too is defined as an adventure game not a RPG.

Now I happen to really like Talisman and used to play Dungeonquest a lot when i was younger -- be it with a lot of house rules. I just dont think of them as RPGs.

Hope that made it a bit clearer.

-TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 12 août 2012 - 11:29 .

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I still don't see why stats would be needed here?
My character being a lousy shot can shown by making the shooting mechanics harder, like increasing the spread, reducing reload speed, etc.

I rather learn what my character is good at by actually doing something, than be told by a character sheet.
 

As I said on the previous page (I swear, I always end up as the last person...)

That doesn't show your character being a lousy shot.

That shows YOU being a lousy shot.

Your limts are imposed on the character.

This doesn't have to be the case.

If the shooting mechanics are more difficult with a poorer shot and easier with a character that is a better shot, it's still a reflection of that character's ability with said weapons.

Hello Allan
Nope not really, this is just a filter applied on player gaming skills, even if we were to apply level and or stat modifiers to make it more RPG.
That being it said, this is more a modus operendi than anything else, De factor that is not that different from auto-targeting and having the rate of fire depending on how skilled/high is the char dexterity.
So for me this is not what defines the genre, it is just how the system is implemented.
Like the paraphrasing vs verbatrim.
What makes or breaks it is what it allows or prevent the player to do.
 
 
On the 1st page it is clear that RPG is not the same beast for every one, however there are commons themes that are recurring.
In a RPG,
-          you need to influence the story by the decision you make (in good or detrimental)
-          Your action (and that includes how you interact with NPC and companions) influence how the world sees you and your ability to influence the world.
-          The character you are playing need to be flexible enough to play the role you want it to play. To a certain degree hat does apply to companion as well.
-          The player has the possibility to choose it stategical/tactical approach.
 
classes, abilities, skills level dialogue, stealth combat and magic are just means to achieve that.
 
What is the point of having 6 abilities when only 2 are really useful for each class; you might as well not use them at all.
If the damage a mage does with its staff is partly based on strength or if the mage can use heavier staff (more runes slots or bladed /weaponised staff) or heavier robes (better AC and more quick items), it might make it worthwhile to spend some points in strength for mage be it for a char concept or just to give more options.
 
What matter is that those options should be viable in the game?  I would perefer combat system like a combat FS (using character filter on player skills) where you communication and orders is done via dialogue, provided that we can plan the encounter before (i.e. assign dialogue to certain actions) to a stat pushing dungeon crawler.

[Get Magna Carter]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Not saying you are wrong as I dont think there is 1 set answer to this but I just want to clarify myself a bit.

Just having a dungeon crawl with only combat and no character interactions makes its more a 'board game' than an RPG in my book. If you 'roleplayed' the characters doing a dungeon crawl however I think  it is still an RPG but the focus is not on a plot driven story that's for sure -- unless you have a good plot reason for doing the dungeon crawl -- but rather the characters.

I should however say that when it comes to colaborative RPGs (one DM+Players or just a bunch of players making up their own story) you don't need a plot driven story. Some of my best memories of NWN is roleplaying around a campfire -- no big plots, monsters or even loot involved.

I will clarify that I was going on my experiences of playing Dungeons-and-dragons with friends (30 or so years ago) and I did not feel it qualified as a "boardgame" because there was no board as such (unless you count our maps we were drawing up on graph paper). Maybe we were playing badly but we didn' know any better at the time.
This defining business is fiddly especially due to subjectivity and I doubt if we can ever get a definition that everyone will agree on 100%

[Sad Dragon]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

I will clarify that I was going on my experiences of playing Dungeons-and-dragons with friends (30 or so years ago) and I did not feel it qualified as a "boardgame" because there was no board as such (unless you count our maps we were drawing up on graph paper). Maybe we were playing badly but we didn' know any better at the time.
This defining business is fiddly especially due to subjectivity and I doubt if we can ever get a definition that everyone will agree on 100%

First things first. We, as nerds, should celebrate the graph paper more. What would we have done without it? (On a similar note I still want to find a place that can laminate an A3 graph paper -- man that would help soo much when playing PnP).

Now with that out of the way I would say that I agree that I doubt there is any one definition that would fit all. My definition taken to extreme is pretty simple: Game must have role playing going on -- if it's just mechanics going on that its not a RPG.

And I would also salute you for being there in a time when RPGs where a new thing, without people playing it 30 years ago, NONE of us would be here today.

Have you ever heard of a board game called Dragonfire? Board game geek link
I remember it being really fun, but I have lost the game master pages with all the adventures :/
From what I have read it should play kind of like Hero Quest (not played Hero Quest so can't say for sure)

To keep it short for people who don't want to go to the link. Dragonfire was a game where you had premade adventures/levels in a dungeon. The DM controlled the the mechanics, placing out tiles as players opened doors and made sure monsters moved acording to patterns and made like harder for the heroes. The heroes could walk around and explore the dungeon, search for loot and slay monters -- I even think there was a basic level system, though im not sure.

To me this is basically what I think of when I think of old school dungeon crawling. Only this used tiles and miniatures while old school roleplayers didn't -- and they didnt need to they had the power of imagination.

This game (Dragonfire) is classed as a fantasy adventure board game, which is kind of what I would categorise straight up fantasy dungeoncrawlers as well. Same goes for Zelda and many a Final Fantasy game -- though the fantasy part may vary depending on which installment.

I do feel that at times adventure games are boardering on RPGs but can't quite get all the way there. Of course, even during the infency of our genre, during the old school PnP dungeoncrawling days, the line between a "Roll Playing Game" and a "Role Playing Game" was fuzzy. I think some people just played it like I played Dragonfire but I am sure some had dreamed up a whole persona for their elven theif and has incharacter conversations with eachother -- warning for things others wouldnt have seen and what not.  This is when I think a dungeoncrawl stops being an adventure game and starts being a Role Playing Game.

So to sum up. If its just mechanics I would say adventure, if it is about how your character decides to brave the dungeon with a group of adventurers, its your characters that are going on an adventure -- You on the other hand, might just be roleplaying

And to Get Magna Carter I would say that I doubt you played it badly, cause there is no doubt in my mind you had fun -- not to mention you where pioneering the genre

And  with that I will end on this note: Graphpaper FTW!

-TSD