332 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Agreed. If RPG games were only a glorified game of Monopoly, with no story, they would suck.

If RPGs were only a story about playing a certain type of character, they would be action games.


Thankfully, stats, chance and backgrounds are all FACILITATED by stats in games, not DIMINISHED by them. It's much more fun to play a 10 Strength, 1 Intellience character in Fallout than it is to play Adam Jensen. And I even liked DE:HR, for the most part. It's still not MY charcater. It's still not a chance for me to explore the world and see it through the eyes of the character I desire.

I think an entire generation has grown up on games that use stats in an ineffectual and poor manner, so they hate it. When, in reality, the best games of the 90's and early 2000's mimicked the PnP experience as best they could, with a very good DM and removing all of the dice and pencil aspects. Sitting and creating a character, visualizing their thoughts and their abilities and see that come to life before your eyes is an act of creativity. Playing a game with levels and covers took options is just a thinking man's action game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My favourite early CRPG was pretty much entirely devoid of story. Oubliette was released in 1977, and it consisted of a single dungeon with nothing particularly of note at the bottom, but the bottom was virtually impossible to reach. The gameplay was excellent though, and players could easily become attached to their party members.

But it was a very simple game, and I can't honestly say it's a great game. It was a great game for the period, but the pre-Ultima CRPG landscape was fairly bleak.

I understand Oubliette has been rereleased as an iPhone app, if anyone's interested (though I haven't seen the port).

[Allan Schumacher]

Word of the wise, in order to not multipost this is very likely going to be a VERY long post.  I'll try to break up my replies.  (Actually I'll reply in chunks since I won't be able to get through all this over lunch!)

EntropicAngel wrote...

Practice shouldn't be NECESSARY, Allan. It's alright if it's necessary to become good, but if I can't aim with my mouse worth a d*mn, I shouldn't be expected to practice just to play the character.

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.

It's also important to note that my comment regarding "practice" is in regards to your claim about how anyone can use logical thinking.  Problem solving is a mental skill, and one that becomes better with practice.  I contend that, just as someone may have poor physical skills, they can have poor mental skills, and with practice (or rather, experience) they can be improved upon.  I do not think that just anyone can utilize logic to the same level of everyone else.

The same works for more tactical games, and it's why I dislike a couple of DA fights like the Arishok fight. I spent the entire time kiting. That's not cool. I can understand if I'm playing on a hard diffficulty, but if I'm playing on Normal he shouldn't be five times as hard as any other boss in the game.

The Arishok fight is a fight that could be a lot better (especially the 1-on-1 fight).  I didn't enjoy that fight either, but it has little to do with being good at controlling the character in the game, or really challenging the player's skills.  It's mostly a tedious fight (although poorer players will be prone to struggling with it.  By the sounds of it, your experience with gaming knows about the term kiting.  If someone hasn't thought of that then they'll struggle a lot more than you did with that fight).


=================================================================

Sad Dragon wrote...

Take the skill system from the original Deus Ex in which even a skilled
FPS player would have problems hitting the broadside of a barn with a
weapon they were untrained in. Couple that with a V.A.T.S System and you
now have a system were players skilled in FPS games and players
unskilled in the genre both gain something from skilling up that weapon
skill.

Could be done.  As always, adding in extra features may or may not be worth it.  Sometimes someone is going to want to make a game that requires more player skill, while someone else is just going to want to make a game that completely removes player skill.  Or they can combine the two.  All are valid ways to design an RPG.


============================================================

Reamlzmaster wrote...

It should not be because I as a player cannot aim. My character is the
one doing the aiming and attacking. I tell them what to attack and what
ability or tactic to use. That is where in my humble opinion player
skill should come in.

It's still a player skill imposed on the character though.  For example, if you're familiar with particular tactics that tend to work in prior games that you like, you'll still find yourself being more successful than another player that does not, despite having the exact same character.

I don't think it's a stretch for anyone in this thread to acknowledge that any player picking up DAO as their first ever RPG video game is going to struggle with it, compared to people that have a vast history of playing prior games from BioWare, Black Isle, Obsidian, etc..

============================================================

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In regards to the INT score of 3 (not really applicable in any Bioware
game; but hey... what the heck) this is solved easily with Fallout style
leveling. If you have a high INT score, you get more skill points.

I actually scored a roll in Baldur's Gate that let me set my INT to 3 and set all other attributes to 18 with my Paladin.  Strength was 18/96 to boot.


3rd Edition D&D does something similar with intelligence feeding skill points as well (though the CRPGs tend to not really use those skills in my experience).  I don't think it's a perfect system (I think there are still fundamental issues a person that is almost incapable of rational thought can become a master at something, though I suppose it's akin to becoming a savant), but it is better.

Though I did have a fun idea that journal entries and the quest compass should be affected by intelligence.  Imagine a journal that has poorly written (or just incorrect) journal entries if you have a low intelligence.  And quest markers that always take you to food or some other immediate gratification thing!  Hahaha.

Allen, to your point of 2K12, yes it does require a good deal of skill
to dribble, shoot and dunk WELL in these games (I too have been known to
play a sports game - the shame! The horror! Lol) but if you drop the
difficulty down to Easy/Casual, you can do all things pretty simply by
pressing a button. Mass Effect makes combat super easy as far as enemy
health, but it still requires me to line up a shot while being hounded
after by Husks, a very Action-intense sevens t of gameplay that is
present throughout.

Are you not able to actually shoot the husks to relieve the pressure?  I'd almost like to do a test with a non-gamer and see how they do in ME3 in story mode.  If the player is virtually invulnerable and the enemies easy to kill I don't see the problem.  People may not be able to shoot "WELL" but if they can still accomplish the tasks similar to 2k12?

If I'm not in control of Isabella, a character who anyone in their right
mind would pump as much Dec and Cun into as humanly possible, and she,
as the most dexterous and crafty person in the fight, cannot dodge the
Rage demon attack, but I, as a bumbling Mage, can? That's a rift that
cannot be explained except by player skill.

It's a rift that's easily explained by artificial intelligence.  By the same token, when I run away from someone in DAO while they're swinging, and their sword swings into the air but I still take damage, that's a disconnect in line with "I hit someone with my bow but nothing happened" in Morrowind which is far more foolish.

Since your example represents cognitive decision making, however, (the decision to avoid the charge) I see it as a parallel to any BioWare game where the player is better able to control the characters than the AI.

I would say that because a game like ME or Fallout give you control of
one player, they have mechanisms which can mitigate this (pause and
shoot, VATS, etc.) but since DA is a GROUP based combat system, there is
no way to easily fix this without either A) getting rid of control of
your party (I.e. maybe just power/ability control like in ME or
altogether like in Dragon Dogma) or getting rid of the action
segments of combat.

You can still issue move orders to all your characters, and with the ability to pause I did just that with the encounters that required evasive action by the party.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 août 2012 - 07:31 .

[Sad Dragon]

First things first:

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...

Thank you for making me feel old man. XD
Now I remember playing FPS games usign the arrow keys before I learned how to use the mouse. Man it was a hard transition at the time but my skill level in aiming leveled up so much after getting through the hardship.

With that out of the way...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

Take the skill system from the original Deus Ex in which even a skilled
FPS player would have problems hitting the broadside of a barn with a
weapon they were untrained in. Couple that with a V.A.T.S System and you
now have a system were players skilled in FPS games and players
unskilled in the genre both gain something from skilling up that weapon
skill.

Could be done.  As always, adding in extra features may or may not be worth it.  Sometimes someone is going to want to make a game that requires more player skill, while someone else is just going to want to make a game that completely removes player skill.  Or they can combine the two.  All are valid ways to design an RPG.

I agree, relying on player skill can be a valid way to go -- as would making a game that had no relyance on player skill. I was more stating that there are ways to implement a system where people who like more direct input -- in the form of player skill -- and those who want less input both can come to enjoy without the mechanics getting in the way. 


-TSD

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

By the same token, when I run away from someone in DAO while they're swinging, and their sword swings into the air but I still take damage, that's a disconnect in line with "I hit someone with my bow but nothing happened" in Morrowind which is far more foolish.

Neither one is a disconnect at all if the game's mechanics are adequately documented.

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Reamlzmaster wrote...

It should not be because I as a player cannot aim. My character is the
one doing the aiming and attacking. I tell them what to attack and what
ability or tactic to use. That is where in my humble opinion player
skill should come in.

It's still a player skill imposed on the character though.  For example, if you're familiar with particular tactics that tend to work in prior games that you like, you'll still find yourself being more successful than another player that does not, despite having the exact same character.

I don't think it's a stretch for anyone in this thread to acknowledge that any player picking up DAO as their first ever RPG video game is going to struggle with it, compared to people that have a vast history of playing prior games from BioWare, Black Isle, Obsidian, etc..

I agree, but once the player gets to the same level as the other person then the difference in twitch (reaction) skills comes into play. It does not matter how much I practice a skill if the time it takes to react does not change. I may make fewer mistakes, but not be able to change my speed.
In a turn based rpg that is not a problem. Case in point Temple of Elemental Evil and Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor can be played by anyone and it requires no twitch skills. The games were based on initative. We can also go back to the early crpgs that were turn based and did not require twitch skills.

Dodging was based on the character's ability (Dexterity with a dodge modifier) not the gamer's ability to push the button fast enough to execute the dodge. I simply told the character to dodge. Whether the dodge was successful or not was based on character skill not my reaction time.

What is required is that the gamer come up with a strategy, build the party and make use of tactics. It should not depend on how fast I as the gamer can react. 

One of my favorite crpgs came from Datasoft (Intellicreations) called Alternate Reality (1985). ( StM has already mentioned another favorite of mine.)  If my character encounter the enemy. I was given a menu of options from Attack, Cast a spell, escape etc. The game waited until I made my decision. The gamer also had to make decisions on how much food and water to carry, should you buy a round at the local tavern which had benefits), should you join a private club (also beneficial) or get a job.

DA2 is about as action-oriented as I am willing to part with my money. The only reason I now have Witcher 2 is because my son-in-law brought it to me.  I have no interest in the combat as it is presented. No matter how great the game may be.

I am not saying that crpgs should not have twitch or reaction time based gameplay. I am simply saying those are the ones I will not be playing. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I am not saying that crpgs should not have twitch or reaction time based gameplay. I am simply saying those are the ones I will not be playing.

I am saying that twitch-based gameplay cannot be mandatory in a roleplaying game.

Allan's point that decision-making separates good players from bad players is fair, but the original Dungeon Siege demonstrated that even that need not be necessary.  Both Dragon Age games had such an optional available during development (and DAO's was added back in by the Advanced Tactics mod).

If the player wants to play a character who makes better tactical decisions than he does, then the game shouldn't require his input.  But if the player wants to play a character who makes poorer tactical decisions than he does, then that is already within the player's grasp - he can simply make poor decisions.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 août 2012 - 09:54 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I am not saying that crpgs should not have twitch or reaction time based gameplay. I am simply saying those are the ones I will not be playing.

I am saying that twitch-based gameplay can be mandatory in a roleplaying game.

Allan's point that decision-making separates good players from bad players is fair, but the original Dungeon Siege demonstrated that even that need not be necessary.  Both Dragon Age games had such an optional available during development (and DAO's was added back in by the Advanced Tactics mod).

If the player wants to play a character who makes better tactical decisions than he does, then the game shouldn't require his input.  But if the player wants to play a character who makes poorer tactical decisions than he does, then that is already within the player's grasp - he can simply make poor decisions.

 I agree an crpg can require twitch based gameplay and certain crpgs do. Those are the ones I have little interest in. I will admit I like Dungeon Seige and Titan Quest. Both games are accessible albeit extremely linear.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sorry. A typo completely changed the meaning of my post. I was disagreeing with you.

[Ticladesign]

Anything Neverwinter Nights. From the character creation to the ability to make your own modules for you or your friends to enjoy, to the DM Client offering a PnP experience to a complete Persistent World is a RPG to me. The whole package.

Strong story based games could be RPG's, but could just as well be an Action-adventure game. And most "RPG's" these days are in fact Action-Adventure games.

RPG's to me are all about creating my OWN character, not sheppard, not Gerald or any other, premade lead character because the writers demand that for their story to work.

Therefore is the Neverwinter Nights game concept (Campaign/toolset/modulair design) how RPG's should be, in my opinion.

Modifié par Ticladesign, 15 août 2012 - 01:14 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sorry. A typo completely changed the meaning of my post. I was disagreeing with you.

No problem! I do not want twitch based  combat. I prefer turn based  and can deal with realtime with pause. As far as I am concerned a crpg should not depend on my ability to react but on my character's ability to react.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Cstaf wrote...

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.

For me, an RPG turns into another genre depending on where I perceive the focus of the game to be. It's easy for a game to contain RP elements, but it's how concentrated those elements are compared to other aspects of gameplay that determine my decision. Where have the developers put most of their love and attention? Does RPing take up more of the gameplay time than combat? Discounting skills and stats, how does the game allow my character to evolve?

These days it's rare for me to say "That's not an RPG." if it contains even a smidgeon of RP, such as character creation, I might call it a Pseudo RPG. I've said it somewhere before, but my requirements for what makes an RPG have changed as games have changed. Technology has gotten better. It allows for more scope and grandeur than what used to be possible on floppy disks.

But the basics for me are:
Some sort of character creation
Interaction with non-hostile, non-mercantile characters
A story I care about, and that my character can care about.

Everything else simply determines how shallow or deep the RP aspects of the G are, though the deeper the better.

DA2 I find hard to place on the Action/RPG scale. *considers* The sheer number of combat encounters and the way they keep going and going makes me want to put it firmly on the Action side, especially in light of DA:O and that game's expanded dialogues. Despite both combat and dialogue being...refurbished for the sequel, I think it's the climax of the game and its gratuitous love of flashy boss fights that cinches DA2 as more of an Action game than RPG to my mind.

But it's all subjective, as you say.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 15 août 2012 - 03:36 .

[Pasquale1234]

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.

I don't mind the shift so long as products are labeled in a way that allow consumers to make informed purchase decisions.  RPG is a popular label, and has been so liberally applied that it has lost much of its meaning.

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.

My fundamental expectation for an RPG is that I will be able to role-play a character by making in-character decisions for that character and having the game world respond in some fashion.  In order to do that successfully, I need to have significant (absolute or as close to it as is possible given the technological constraints) control over the character's behavior.

I don't expect absolute character agency in a cRPG.  I expect the game to provide a limited set of options for the character to choose among.  I do expect the game to allow the role-player to determine the motives for each choice instead of assuming them like DA2 does.

I expect the setting/story to provide some form of overall goal or objective for the protag to accomplish, and to improve skills and establish relationships with NPCs along the way.  I find it much easier to role-play when the setting gives me multiple paths to accomplish things so that each character I might want to run could make choices suitable for his/her personality, filters, values, etc.

Role-playing feels much deeper and more realistic to me when the character's skills, rather than the player's skills, are used to determine his/her success.  My tolerance for action combat is somewhat limited, and the role-playing experience feels much richer when my character is able to develop skills in persuasion, intimidation, crafting, really anything other non-combat skills.

So, to summarize my requirements for an RPG:

1)  To role-play by making in-character decisions based on the character's motives.
2)  To be in control of the character's behavior.
3)  To have some overall goals/objectives for the character to accomplish.
4)  To interact with the setting, including other NPCs, and have the game world react to my character's behaviors and choices in some fashion.
5)  To invest in building my character's skills, and have his/her options and successes depend upon those investments.

Any game that doesn't do a pretty thorough job of fulfilling all of that list falls into a different genre - most likely action-adventure, interactive movie, whatevah.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cstaf wrote...

At what point does a RPG turn into another genre?

I think you answered your own question in the preceding paragraph:

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.

If you have to play them differently, then they're not the same genre.

There's your line.

[upsettingshorts]

But myself and others have been playing them the same while players like Sylvius the Mad and Cstaf been forced to play them differently.

The definition, due to said falsifiability, doesn't work.  Unless genres are subjective things, in which case, trying to pin down the label is an exercise in futility.  I don't think genres are subjective, though, so I'm going with the definition as stated doesn't work.

As such, I think the RPG genre needs to be narrowly defined in a way that lists a limited set of features that differentiate it from other genres. Then we can hyphenate/hybridize as necessary.  If that means that so-called pure RPGs aren't made anymore, as they've all become action RPGs, then so be it.  At least then we could agree on what to call the damn genres.

Too often these threads become "what I personnally demand from an RPG" rather than attempting to establish any kind of useful, universal standards.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 août 2012 - 02:04 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Too often these threads become "what I personnally demand from an RPG" rather than attempting to establish any kind of useful, universal standards.

As if codifying 'pure' RPG on BSN would mean anything.

At its most basic, roleplaying is acting out a persona that is not your own.

A roleplaying game is something that facilitates roleplaying opportunities. It puts you in the shoes of a character who is not you, in situations you would not normally find yourself. Whether these situations are shallow or deep, whether the game restricts you by forcing a certain role or is more freeform by allowing you to forge your own, it is still a type of RPG.

It is up to the RPer to find the sort of RPG which will accomodate their favoured style of play. cRPGs are always going to be more restrictive than RL RPGs due to simple technical limitations, though not all RL RPGs are necessarily deep roleplaying experiences. Much depends on who is running the game, what rules are being used, and what sort of roleplayers the game is geared towards. Some gamers happily use pre-set roles, others like to twink characters for maximised combat potential, while some prefer to submit complete backstories with theirs. All are valid means or RPing.

[upsettingshorts]

Oh I don't think it'd really be tremendously useful, other than it would provide an answer for threads like these that pop up all the time.

I've actually been thinking of starting a thread (in Off Topic) when I throw myself back into the BSN where the sole purpose is getting together and collectively defining terms through dialectics.

I kinda can't wait to see what kind of disaster that thread turns in to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But myself and others have been playing them the same while players like Sylvius the Mad and Cstaf been forced to play them differently.

Because the games haven't demanded my playstyle, but they have allowed it.

My playstyle is the tabletop playstyle.  I think we can all agree that tabletop roleplaying games are roleplaying games.  So any playstyle that doesn't work there isn't something roleplaying games need to support in order to be counted as roleplaying games.

Does your playstyle, which you used in both DAO and DA2, work in tabletop games?  If not, then it isn't relevant to the discussion of what constitutes roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've actually been thinking of starting a thread (in Off Topic) when I throw myself back into the BSN where the sole purpose is getting together and collectively defining terms through dialectics.

I would love for you to do that, if only because I have never been able to understand how dialectics work.

At no point has Hegel ever made any sense to me.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've actually been thinking of starting a thread (in Off Topic) when I throw myself back into the BSN where the sole purpose is getting together and collectively defining terms through dialectics.

I would love for you to do that, if only because I have never been able to understand how dialectics work.

At no point has Hegel ever made any sense to me.

Oh, the notoriously obtuse Hegel – I'm not sure he really makes sense to anyone! XD

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But myself and others have been playing them the same while players like Sylvius the Mad and Cstaf been forced to play them differently.

Because the games haven't demanded my playstyle, but they have allowed it.

My playstyle is the tabletop playstyle.  I think we can all agree that tabletop roleplaying games are roleplaying games.  So any playstyle that doesn't work there isn't something roleplaying games need to support in order to be counted as roleplaying games.

Does your playstyle, which you used in both DAO and DA2, work in tabletop games?  If not, then it isn't relevant to the discussion of what constitutes roleplaying.

To that I'd simply say that cRPGs were never tabletop RPGs.  Something I've argued at length before.  Hence I tend to add the lowercase "c" to imply that distinction.

If you're going to define roleplaying as something that can include both cRPGs and tabletop games, you'd have to include LARPing and things like Vampire: The Masquerade as well.

Also dialectics existed before Hegel (and indeed go beyond him such as with dialectical materialism).  However all I personally meant by using that term was attempting to arrive at a mutually agreed upon truth of something as opposed to convincing each other that our own personally held definitions were best.  That would be more of a debate, and I don't think - having been on the BSN a while - that attitude would get this hypothetical thread anywhere.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 août 2012 - 05:21 .

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But myself and others have been playing them the same while players like Sylvius the Mad and Cstaf been forced to play them differently.

Because the games haven't demanded my playstyle, but they have allowed it.

My playstyle is the tabletop playstyle.  I think we can all agree that tabletop roleplaying games are roleplaying games.  So any playstyle that doesn't work there isn't something roleplaying games need to support in order to be counted as roleplaying games.

Does your playstyle, which you used in both DAO and DA2, work in tabletop games?  If not, then it isn't relevant to the discussion of what constitutes roleplaying.

I always found that tabletop games get in the way of the actual role playing

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To that I'd simply say that cRPGs were never tabletop RPGs.  Something I've argued at length before.  Hence I tend to add the lowercase "c" to imply that distinction.

Exactly.  As such, you're advancing the position that the kind of roleplaying you're doing in CRPGs is not roleplaying in the tabletop sense.

I'm advancing a definition of roleplaying games as games that do allow roleplaying in the tabletop sense.

If you're going to define roleplaying as something that can include both cRPGs and tabletop games, you'd have to include LARPing and things like Vampire: The Masquerade as well.

I don't see how Vampire isn't a tabletop game.  And I'll happily count LARPing as roleplaying.

Also dialectics existed before Hegel (and indeed go beyond him such as with dialectical materialism).

True.  I'm a big fan of Socractic dialectics.  But the term is generally used to refer to the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis approach favoured by Hegel, so I expected that was where you were heading.

However all I personally meant by using that term was attempting to arrive at a mutually agreed upon truth of something

That's pretty much the Hegelian approach.  I'd like to see it in action.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would start with the tautological assertion that roleplaying is roleplaying.

Therefore, anything that is roleplaying needs to work in any environment that permits roleplaying. If we can agree on at least some of the environments which permit roleplaying, then we can begin to falsify some possible definitions of roleplaying.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But myself and others have been playing them the same while players like Sylvius the Mad and Cstaf been forced to play them differently.

Because the games haven't demanded my playstyle, but they have allowed it.

My playstyle is the tabletop playstyle.  I think we can all agree that tabletop roleplaying games are roleplaying games.  So any playstyle that doesn't work there isn't something roleplaying games need to support in order to be counted as roleplaying games.

Does your playstyle, which you used in both DAO and DA2, work in tabletop games?  If not, then it isn't relevant to the discussion of what constitutes roleplaying.

I always found that tabletop games get in the way of the actual role playing

I am intrigued by this statement. I'd like to see the logic behind it.