120 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Shorts, your OP needs to be 4X more condensed to be received and responded to how you wish. Also, the topic needs to be changed and the goal of the thread needs to be stated there (in the topic) and also within the first sentence or two of your post.

Blame people not reading all you want, but if you want this thread to do what you state you want it to, clean up your post.

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Blame people not reading all you want

I'm going to keep going with this instead.

For starters, it's accurate.  But it's also a convenient filter.

If all I get from this thread is a list of posters who read the OP and take the idea behind it seriously that I can PM later, that'll probly end up being more productive than "dumbing it down" as you suggest.

(Now if only we could agree on what dumbing down means...)

[Fast Jimmy]

Alright then, rock on.

[upsettingshorts]

Yeah that's the kind of thing I'm lookin for:  "RPG mechanics."

Basically any term that tends to gets used as if it has a universally-agreed upon definition, but evidently doesn't.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 décembre 2012 - 06:16 .

[Maria Caliban]

Immersion

Action combat

Choices and consequence

Mature

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 décembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I have no time to read the first post ...

An RPG needs to have the SPIRIT of Role Playing .. it's mechanism gameplay is like other genres like action, shooting, adventure, strategy etc. so it doesn't matter!

Getting back to it's spirit it needs all of these:
1. choices that matter and have specific consequenses
2. Lots of Dialog and different options in conversation that some include (1.)
3. Specific Quest/Journal, Lots of places to travel by your choice
4. Inventory, looting and Customizing
- Extra optional things...

That's enough. Isn't it?

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 05 décembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[eroeru]

"Fun".

[Maria Caliban]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

Oh sweet jesus not this topic again.

I don't recall one instance of this topic in the past.

Would you care to link a previous example of 'this topic?'

hoorayforicecream wrote...

What good are terms if you have no mutually agreed-upon definitions?

They give you something to argue over.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yeah that's the kind of thing I'm lookin for:  "RPG mechanics."

"RPG Mechanics" highlights something that I noticed in your initial list.

I have a tendency to base everything on the definition of roleplaying, particularly terms that include "roleplaying" within them (like roleplaying game, or anything with the RPG prefix).

That seems to me to be the obvious first term in need of a definition, as nearly everything else stems from it.  I would argue (and I have) that things like immersion or reactivity are only valuable insofar as they promote or allow roleplaying.  Similiarly, complaints about dumbing-down or streamlining should be based on the extent to which those features diminish or impede roleplaying.

The reason I think that everything starts with roleplaying is because I've defined roleplaying game as something within which roleplaying is an integral part.  If roleplaying game means something else, then the definition of roleplaying would then become less important.

But, certainly, given my approach to discussions here, if we could define roleplaying then resolving most of the other arguments would be reduced to a matter of simple arithmetic.

I would, however, like to take issue with the suggestion that discussions are ever derailed by semantics.  Those semantic arguments don't derail discussions; they add clarity to discussions.

[eroeru]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Similiarly, complaints about dumbing-down or streamlining should be based on the extent to which those features diminish or impede roleplaying.

I wouldn't agree with this, even if I agree that "RPG mechanics" is the main thing that's wanted to be discussed here.

It's pretty plausible that you can have a game that has RPG mechanics, yet implements complexity differently, given that dumbing-down would mean it has something to do with complexity. Hmm... does it?

It seems that for you every one of these terms comes down to saying something about implementing RPG mechanics. I think that's too narrow a definition and will water down most of these words. I don't think all of them can, even for simplicity's sake, come down to "a measurement of RPG mechanics" (and that they'd all "consist" of it).

But that's for the discussion part I guess...

...

Oh, and one term I've been pretty sure of myself, but have seen much misunderstandings about is "Strategy" and "strategic".

Modifié par eroeru, 05 décembre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Xewaka]

Realism vs Verisimilitude.
"Gritty dark mature".
Spiritual Successor.
Cartoon-like (And anime-like by extension).
Player Character.
Character control and Player control.
Choice vs Illusion of Choice.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm going to throw my two cents in on here and say

'WRPG' and 'JRPG.' If those two terms need to be labeled as unusable by the Powers That Be of this great committee, then that's cool, but they need to be discussed, as they are apart of the average RPG player and the industry's lexicon.

[Cutlasskiwi]

First person vs third person experience.
Artstyle.
Mature.
Iconic looks.

I'm intrigued by the idea behind this thread.

[eroeru]

^ While I think those are excellent examples, the ones that pertain to "maturity" cannot be defined rigorously without linking to an extensive psychological study of what preferences tend to come with more age, and for example, what kind of "lines" and "contours"; stories and characteristics; art and music would most kids find appealing.

Yet this doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about that because they don't have a rigorous definition. People often use these words with reference to specific works, and use them as an adjective explaining their perspective. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with not liking what many feel is "more mature".

I think most of these discussions become "too heated" because people confuse descriptive and normative claims. What's more, it's hard to pin down what descriptive claims are more "subjective" and thus not falsifiable (as are these claims of "maturity" - at least without extensive studies).

Modifié par eroeru, 05 décembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[Xewaka]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Choice vs Illusion of Choice.

Are you sure you mean choice? Or choice consequence?
Those are two different things.
Ah, this is a topic for the actual thread, isn't it.

The fact you had to ask what I meant is kinda the point of me suggesting it in the first place, heh.

[MichaelStuart]

This is what these terms mean to me

Roleplaying game?
A fun activity involving the player assuming the identity of a character.

Action RPG?
A Roleplaying game with sequences of skill based activity.

Choices that matter?
Decisions that leeds to unique sequences.

Immersion?
A process to help the player roleplay by making the situation believeable from a characters perceptive.

Reactivity?
When the game world alters its self by the players choices.

Roleplaying?
Assuming the identity of a character.

Dumbing down?
When something is made to include others a person sees as intellectually inferior.

Streamlining?
The process of removing features that hinder the player

[mousestalker]

"Dumbing down" combat means making a game suitable for people whose reflexes are not so good. In other words it's a game I can play.

I'd substitute Averylike for cartoon like. Some cartoons are more realistic than others. Tex Avery's were famously over the top.

Modifié par mousestalker, 05 décembre 2012 - 07:36 .

[eroeru]

"Dumbing down" doesn't always go for reflexes. At least I use that terms for the exact opposite - DA2 was dumbed down because combat was built on reflexes, and less on thought. (and I'm pretty sure that in this game's context the term was mostly used as such)

@MichaelStuart - I think you quelched my thirst for these discussions. Adequate people don't actually need more than these kinds of simple definitions to proceed in an argument calmly and in a civilized way... (edit: oh, and fruitfully)

Modifié par eroeru, 05 décembre 2012 - 07:45 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'd actually disagree with several of them. Hence the reason for the thread.

That said, I don't think discussion over them need be heated, and detaching the semantics from any given thread's context will help with that.  Maybe.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 décembre 2012 - 07:37 .

[ObserverStatus]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
Mature

Oh god, please don't go there.