289 réponses à ce sujet

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Really? Now you're going to argue that an inanimate object is a character, and that a racing game is not based solely on the skill and reflexes of the player? At this point you're just being dishonest and obtuse. 

This argument has become absurd. I don't know how better to tell you that you're arguing from a place of ignorance that basically everyone else who considered certain games to be RPGs for decades is wrong. 

Character is an incredibly broad term.

But I'm not really saying NFS Undercover is an RPG. I'm saying that under your definition, it definitely could be considered as one, or as on the line there, because it has those attributes. And thus, if you refuse to consider it one, your definition needs to be adjusted.


In regards to your second statement--I don't see how that's relevant. Again, it doesn't matter what people think. What matters is what is. If they're wrong, they're wrong. It's no big deal. If they're right, they're right. No biggie. Of course their opinions on the matter must be determined, but it seems like you're arguing that because they feel a certain way, they can't be contradicted. Which is horribly untrue.

No, my last sentence wasn't any kind of argument. I was telling you that obviously there has existed for decades, in some form, a specific set of characteristics which constitute the definition of an RPG, and which you have now decided is incorrect based on an incomplete understanding of the topic.

Do not even try to tell me what is and is not an RPG by my definition, which I spelled out in specific detail, without addressing the full definition I provided honestly and without rhetoric.

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 15 mai 2013 - 05:58 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I absolutely did play the game--TW1 at least. All of the conversation in the "tutorial" paints Witchers, by definition, as neutral outsiders who only exist to slay monsters. Heck, even Geralt's conversation with his buddy--the "sh*t or no sh*t discussion--"says this in the end--that regardless of how grey the world's monsters are getting, there will always be REAL monsters for him to slay.

I was engaging in hyperole there, and I apologize. I shouldn't do that. However, even then, I would only consider TW a lite RPG because, as I stated elsewhere here, the character definition is so broad as to nearly be meaningless.

You have actively argued against yourself several times in your comments.

You say that, by your definition of role-playing (which is not the consensual definition), the player role plays when she assumes control over any character, whether or not the player is in some way acting out the narrative in accordance with the traits and characteristics of that character.

Then, you said that a game which has a pre-defined character over which the player has no control in terms of background and personality is not a role-playing game. (Which is patently false. You can role-play as J. Edgar Hoover. You can role-play as Joan de Arc. As long as you are somehow acting out that character's actions in accordance with its traits or attributes, you are role-playing)

In the comment above, you are saying that a game which has an undenfined character is less of an RPG, when before you said that something either is or is not an RPG with no allowance for qualitative measure.

I think you should slow down a little bit and try to work a piece at a time. You appear to be contradicting yourself quite a lot, and your definition seems to change from comment to comment depending on which argument you're responding to.

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

 I stick by my definition, and here's why:

Everyone challenging this definition are either trying to separate the 'role-playing' or 'the game' out of it.

First of all, some people are saying that they don't want to define the genre by a certain type of mechanics or rule set. I respect this, which is I why I intentionally made my definition as broad as possible to accomodate any system of mechanics. I didn't say that there had to be dice rolls, or spin the bottle, or anything.

However, every game has a system of mechanics or rules to govern its behavior. A role-playing game without such a system, of any type, is just role-playing. You can't enitrely separate the 'game' out of it.

The most important part of my definition is this:

That the character has a distinct identity and set of capabilities which is separate from the player.

I'm just curious why you think this is the case.

You may not have said anything about spin the bottle, but you did say there had to be stats...which there don't.  You can still have rules without stats for RPGs, look at LARPing. They opperate under rules, and you assume a role other than you, but you are very much confined to your own capabilities, it is still a game however (although...some LARPers may disagree on that point)

I may have made a mistake in saying that there must be statistical attributes. I did not necessarily mean that they must be purely numerical in nature. I still stand by the bolded phrase above. The reason being that if there is no way of mediating character interactions which allows for a distinction between the capabilities of the player and the character, then it is simply role-playing. Maybe I should have clarified that it doesn't need to be a numerical system. It could use cards or pick-up sticks or whatever.

Is there any method for tracking the attributes of player characters at all in LARPing?

In the medium of the game, which is live action, is there any kind of action the character may take of which the player is not capable within the same medium or vice versa?

i.e. If the character may be capable of spells, obviously the player is not within the medium of this sort of game. If that kind of interaction is mediated by a set of mechanics, it falls under my definition. If it is not, it is simply role-playing.

I may be more confused now,but I don't think your spell casting analogy holds up.  Sure, the player cannot cast a spell, but what determines wether or not a spell connects is entirely up to the capability of the player, which would be the same as the capability of the character.  And what about low or no fantasy roleplay.  Or sci-fi using laser tag?  The characters ability to aim and hit someone would be exactly the same as the players.

What about the who done it role play mysteries?  You play a role, and there are winners and losers, but wether you win or lose comes down how well you can bluff, or investigate, and is not tied to the skill of the character but rather the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I wondered if you'd show up, Sylvius. I'm glad you joined the fray.

Merin summoned me:

MerinTB wrote...

...that way leads to madness...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Are you saying that an RPG is a game where you don't necessarily define a character, but where you must express that character from a number of different options for expression? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm saying that roleplaying requires that the player make decisions on behalf of his character, and that the player needs to know every relevant detail about his character in order to do that.

I'm presupposing that a roleplaying game is built around roleplaying as a core system.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

No, my last sentence wasn't any kind of argument. I was telling you that obviously there has existed for decades, in some form, a specific set of characteristics which constitute the definition of an RPG, and which you have now decided is incorrect based on an incomplete understanding of the topic.

Do not even try to tell me what is and is not an RPG by my definition, which I spelled out in specific detail, without addressing the full definition I provided honestly and without rhetoric.

In regards to the bolded--that doesn't mean a thing. For decades there was a definition of "dead" that said, if your heart stopped beating, you were dead. Now, doctors and medical personnel have realized that it's false--someone who's heart has stopped beating can be revived. Thus, their definition was wrong.

Were all those people declared dead when their heart stopped beating truly dead? Of course not. The definition was incorrect. Them (doctors) thinking the definition was one thing didn't make that reality. The fact that "for decades people thought something" is irrelevant.

You're going back on yourself again. This is the same Pluto argument that someone used before, only now you're on the other side of it. 

A thing objectively has certain properties and characteristics. Those do not change depending on the name of the thing (which is, ironically, what you are trying to do).

A classification of things groups things with similar properties and characteristics together. This also does not change the properties or characteristics of the things in question, but things under one classification may also qualify for other classifications.

The classification of the RPG genre has existed, for many years, based on an aprisal of the traits and qualities which all RPG games share. Your definition of what makes an RPG is not part of that classification. 

There is nothing objective about what you are doing. You are redefining what is a planet and saying that now, only Pluto qualifies and may be called a planet. Which an an inherently subjective exercise. 

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
It is, indeed, your leap.  Here's something to consider - since virtually no-one is using your definition, and several people are actively arguing against your definition (people who, if nothing else, have much more and much more varied experiences with role-playing than the BSN and BioWare games) - why do you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Go ahead to the wikipedia page on role-playing game and see if it fits your narrow definition.

I think I am right because we have yet, as a society and even as a forum, to agree on a value. That tells me that there is no...more right version intrinsically, at this present juncture.
Now, to the uninitiated it will seem as if I am disqualifying my own definition by that, but I'll explain why I'm not: I'm talking about beforehand. Beforehand, before I came up with my definition of RPG, there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those and NOT come up with my own. My own is equally valid.

And really, if BSN can't tell me what something is, I find it hard to believe they can tell me what something isn't.

MerinTB wrote...
EA, you are one person.  There are thousands of role-playing gamers, and hundreds of games labeled as RPGs.  You and your opinion do not outweigh all of them.  Many players love creating personas and making choices based on those personas (whether they made the character or were given a premade character), but many players and games have little about such things and focus instead of fighting, leveling and looting.  And those count, too, as role-playing games.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one--your last sentence. But, in regards to your first three--I don't care about outweighing anyone. It isn't my goal to attack all them and beat them. It's my goal to be right, and that's all I care about. And I don't view right as a subjective thing, when it somes to things like word definitions. I saw in a later statement of yours you replied to me saying something similar to that, so that's all I'll say here. I'll just say that I view it as a solid definition of right, and I care about being on that side. Not about the thousands of people who disagree. "People" are a drop in the ocean of reality. IMO.

This is both sophistry and crankery that you are engaged in.  All the experts (as best as we have), all the history, all the relevant examples are WRONG if they don't fit you, the new guy's, definition.  Because you don't like the established (albeit very broad) definition.

Have you ever had a course on logic?

Let me list the logical fallacies you are engaged in that I can clearly see:

1 - ad ignorantiam: "Arguments from ignorance are based on the absence of evidence and may fail because the lack of evidence for P does not prove P to be false."
"Beforehand, before I came up with my definition of RPG, there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those and NOT come up with my own." -- "And really, if BSN can't tell me what something is, I find it hard to believe they can tell me what something isn't."
Because you fail to find definitions that seem true to you doesn't equate to them being false.  Because someone doesn't give you a satisfactory explanation doesn't make your explanation valid.
Example of why this is wrong: Because a person went missing, and the police and FBI don't know what happened to the missing person, doesn't automatically mean that your assumption that the person was kidnapped is accurate.
EA engaging in argument from ignorance: There isn't a universal, iron-clad, "this and only this" defintion of what is an RPG, therefore MY definition is valid.

2 - argument from personal incredulity: "one cannot imagine something to be so, therefore it cannot be so"
"I think I am right because we have yet, as a society and even as a forum, to agree on a value. That tells me that there is no...more right version intrinsically, at this present juncture."
"before I came up with my definition of RPG, there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those"
"Not about the thousands of people who disagree. "People" are a drop in the ocean of reality."
Because you do not believe in something does not mean that something doesn't exist merely due to your lack of belief.  You say that (trying hard not to focus on the ego your statements take to make) before you created your definition there were no agreed upon definitions... AND in the same post say that vast numbers of people in agreement as well as extant precedence of examples of defintion (in this very act admitting their existance) don't matter to you because they disagree with your "right" definition.
Example of why this is wrong: A person who has never eaten snails cannot imagine they taste good, therefore they cannot possibly taste good.  The fact that large numbers of people DO like the taste is empirical proof that they CAN taste good, so the persons lack of imagination and experience clearly is not a factor.
EA engaging in argument from incredulity: I do not believe that a concrete definition exists, therefore no extant definition is acceptable, and therefore mine must be true.

3 - Inconsistency: "Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others"
"there was no agreed-upon definition. Hence, there is no real reason to subscribe to those and NOT come up with my own"
"I don't view right as a subjective thing, when it somes to things like word definitions."
"I'll just say that I view it as a solid definition of right, and I care about being on that side. Not about the thousands of people who disagree."
Because you dismiss the definitions of others, regardless of whether one person or many people agree with a defintiion, out of hand.  Word definitions, you claim, are not subjective.  And then you, subjectively, come up with your own definition.  Your own definition that is right.  Dismissal of all other definitions, because they are subjective, but yours is right (and, by implication, NOT subjective.)
Examples of why this is wrong: Saying "All dogs are flea-bitten mutts and I cannot stand them.  That's why my sister's labrador is so great!" clearly contradicts itself.  You cannot assert that all of group X is one way, and use that to explain why item 1, clearly part of group X, is not that way.
EA engaging in inconsistency: Everyone else is wrong in their definitions of role-playing game because they are being subjective and not right.  My definition is right.

That's just three.  From two excerpts.

EA, seriously... you can have what you, personally, consider to be RPGs you like, or what you look for in an RPG... but you cannot impose your definition as the "right one" because... well, because you said so on your excessively limited experience.

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 mai 2013 - 06:40 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

 I stick by my definition, and here's why:

Everyone challenging this definition are either trying to separate the 'role-playing' or 'the game' out of it.

First of all, some people are saying that they don't want to define the genre by a certain type of mechanics or rule set. I respect this, which is I why I intentionally made my definition as broad as possible to accomodate any system of mechanics. I didn't say that there had to be dice rolls, or spin the bottle, or anything.

However, every game has a system of mechanics or rules to govern its behavior. A role-playing game without such a system, of any type, is just role-playing. You can't enitrely separate the 'game' out of it.

The most important part of my definition is this:

That the character has a distinct identity and set of capabilities which is separate from the player.

I'm just curious why you think this is the case.

You may not have said anything about spin the bottle, but you did say there had to be stats...which there don't.  You can still have rules without stats for RPGs, look at LARPing. They opperate under rules, and you assume a role other than you, but you are very much confined to your own capabilities, it is still a game however (although...some LARPers may disagree on that point)

I may have made a mistake in saying that there must be statistical attributes. I did not necessarily mean that they must be purely numerical in nature. I still stand by the bolded phrase above. The reason being that if there is no way of mediating character interactions which allows for a distinction between the capabilities of the player and the character, then it is simply role-playing. Maybe I should have clarified that it doesn't need to be a numerical system. It could use cards or pick-up sticks or whatever.

Is there any method for tracking the attributes of player characters at all in LARPing?

In the medium of the game, which is live action, is there any kind of action the character may take of which the player is not capable within the same medium or vice versa?

i.e. If the character may be capable of spells, obviously the player is not within the medium of this sort of game. If that kind of interaction is mediated by a set of mechanics, it falls under my definition. If it is not, it is simply role-playing.

I may be more confused now,but I don't think your spell casting analogy holds up.  Sure, the player cannot cast a spell, but what determines wether or not a spell connects is entirely up to the capability of the player, which would be the same as the capability of the character.  And what about low or no fantasy roleplay.  Or sci-fi using laser tag?  The characters ability to aim and hit someone would be exactly the same as the players.

What about the who done it role play mysteries?  You play a role, and there are winners and losers, but wether you win or lose comes down how well you can bluff, or investigate, and is not tied to the skill of the character but rather the player.

That is why there are different genres with traits that sometimes overlap. A mystery game is a mystery game. Laser tag is laser tag. There can be role-playing elements in a lot of things, but a Civil War reenactment is not a role-playing game. It's just role-playing.

A game from another genre can have role-playing elements, but that does not make it a role-playing game.

EDIT:

I don't mean to be confusing, so let me try to be more clear. You are saying that in a LARP, whether or not a character is successful in any given task is dependent solely on the player's actual physcial skill at completing that task, and therefore it would not be an RPG under my definition.

What I am saying is broad enough to encompass that, as long as there is a set of mechanics which differentiates between distinct capabilities of players and characters.

i.e. If there is a way to say that this player may use spells because of the distinct capabilities of their character, but this other player may not because their character's capabilities do not include spell casting, then it falls under my definition. 

If there is no mechanic for dealing with distinction between the abilities of players and characters, and between each character themselves, it is not part of the RPG genre. 

i.e. If all players and characters have the same capabilities according to the mechanics in place, it is either just role-playing or a game from another genre that includes role-playing elements, but is not part of the distinct genre of RPGs.

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 15 mai 2013 - 07:14 .

[Plaintiff]

Surely a Civil War Reenactment has rules, beyond "dress up like a racist and run around with a musket made of cardboard".

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...


You're going back on yourself again. This is the same Pluto argument that someone used before, only now you're on the other side of it. 

A thing objectively has certain properties and characteristics. Those do not change depending on the name of the thing (which is, ironically, what you are trying to do).

A classification of things groups things with similar properties and characteristics together. This also does not change the properties or characteristics of the things in question, but things under one classification may also qualify for other classifications.

The classification of the RPG genre has existed, for many years, based on an aprisal of the traits and qualities which all RPG games share. Your definition of what makes an RPG is not part of that classification. 

There is nothing objective about what you are doing. You are redefining what is a planet and saying that now, only Pluto qualifies and may be called a planet. Which an an inherently subjective exercise. 

I don't understand what you're saying. How exactly in that statement of mine am i doing what you're saying I'm doing? Point it out clearly.


The bolded is what I'm saying about definitions--it's what I've been saying the whole time.

You're confusing the discussions between "what is a definition" and "my definition for RPG," I suspect, as I worried would happen.

I don't think that I am the one who is confused here. You have been consistently applying various fallacies to your arguments, as MerinTB pointed out so succinctly above. 

Also, you have a tendency that is very dishonest, unfriendly and annoying, which is to reduce your opponents' arguments in a way which changes their meaning, without addressing the argument as a whole.

If you honestly want to debate the merits of your definition, then you have to respond to each point of the counter-arguments you come up against. So far, you have totally avoided any of my arguments which may refute yours and instead are using rhetorical tactics to single out one part from the rest, making dishonest inferrences about the meaning of my argument based on that reduced straw-man argument, and asking dishonest questions which are mostly addressed by the parts of my arguments which you ignore.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I don't really see any arguments here, so I'll just say one thing and move on.

Wow.

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Sure, those two are analogous.  Role-playing can mean theraputic activity, and reading can mean consulting tarot cards.

This is sarcasm.  Reading does not mean the same thing as reading a book.  They can be synonymous, but again... all of group A (things that constitute reading) do not all fit into group B (reading a book)  You can read a newspaper, a screen, a person's intent.  And group B (reading a book) might not fit, at all, into group A (reading) if the context of group A (reading) is that reading means "the interpretation given in the performance of a dramatic part, musical composition,etc"

My point is that saying "Role-playing and playing a game is analogous to reading and reading a book" is a false analogy for what you are trying to prove.   You first have to take the context of what "role-playing" means, and even if you mean "role-playing" as in "acting out the role of a defined character in a game" that still is, at best, an aspect of SOME game playing, and not a required characteristic of playing a game.  You are tryng to say that, "to read a book you must be reading" and that is similar to saying "to play a game you must be role-playing"--and therefore a false analogy, because you don't have to be role-playing to be playing a game.  Cataan, Dixit, Connect Four, Fruit Ninja... you are really putting yourself out there to say that to play any of those games you have to be role-playing.

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Again, you yourself have quite plainly put forth your ignorance about and newness to the concept of role-playing.  You never engaged in role-playing as a learning experience in school or any such group.  You've never tabletop gamed.  You don't know all the different contexts that role-playing can have.  And you've only formed your understanding of a concept you had remained largely unaware of since June of 2012 (going by your statements that you learned of role-playing from the BSN, and your join date is 6/2012.)  Less than a year of experience, and you are claiming to have a better definition that flies in the face of decades of history on the subject.

If you'll recall, Merin, about three months ago we had a conversation in Off-topic and I mentioned that I'd been here for around two years. It's not just post-ME3--I was here post, or concurrent with DA ]['s release, sort of (sort of because I was not on the DA forums at that time.).

You corrected the date, the underlined part.  Instead of June of 2012 you can instead claim about 2009, at best, when the BSN was created.  This doesn't invalidate the point.  My argument still stands--you are like the Physics 101 college student who claims that you have the unifying theory because no one has created an agreed upon one yet AND you don't care about all the scientists who came before you who have added to the search for this theory because "scientists are a drop in the ocean."  In your opinion.

Hence - "You are coming across as a crank - an amateur in the field they are arguing against"

MerinTB wrote...
You are employing theno true Scotsmans fallacy - all RPGs need to let you define a character, so that RPG that doesn't let you define the character is not an RPG.

My argument is pointing out your endless, endless flaws in logic.  As are other people.  Whom you are ignoring.  Because we are just drops of water.  Which, you believe subjectively, you are not. =]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Using your own logic, consider that, perhaps, your definition of "playing a role" is too loose to an extreme.

Can you give an example of how that is so?

The fact that you believe that because the avatar you inhabit in Call of Duty is a soldier, and you engage in the simulation of being a soldier in a battlefield, that you are role-playing.
The fact that you believe that, because the pixels in Super Mario Brothers that you control to run and jump look like a plumber that you are role-playing a plumber.
That you think that anytime you play a game you are engaged in playing a role.  That you think taking on the role of something (a soldier, a race car driver, a city planner) means the same thing as role-playing.

Your inconsistency fallacy (mentioned this one in another post) of refuting using role-playing to define role-playing games because role-playing game has become a gestalt, but turning around to use ROLE to define role-playing.

Hopefully this helps.

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

 I stick by my definition, and here's why:

Everyone challenging this definition are either trying to separate the 'role-playing' or 'the game' out of it.

First of all, some people are saying that they don't want to define the genre by a certain type of mechanics or rule set. I respect this, which is I why I intentionally made my definition as broad as possible to accomodate any system of mechanics. I didn't say that there had to be dice rolls, or spin the bottle, or anything.

However, every game has a system of mechanics or rules to govern its behavior. A role-playing game without such a system, of any type, is just role-playing. You can't enitrely separate the 'game' out of it.

The most important part of my definition is this:

That the character has a distinct identity and set of capabilities which is separate from the player.

I'm just curious why you think this is the case.

You may not have said anything about spin the bottle, but you did say there had to be stats...which there don't.  You can still have rules without stats for RPGs, look at LARPing. They opperate under rules, and you assume a role other than you, but you are very much confined to your own capabilities, it is still a game however (although...some LARPers may disagree on that point)

I may have made a mistake in saying that there must be statistical attributes. I did not necessarily mean that they must be purely numerical in nature. I still stand by the bolded phrase above. The reason being that if there is no way of mediating character interactions which allows for a distinction between the capabilities of the player and the character, then it is simply role-playing. Maybe I should have clarified that it doesn't need to be a numerical system. It could use cards or pick-up sticks or whatever.

Is there any method for tracking the attributes of player characters at all in LARPing?

In the medium of the game, which is live action, is there any kind of action the character may take of which the player is not capable within the same medium or vice versa?

i.e. If the character may be capable of spells, obviously the player is not within the medium of this sort of game. If that kind of interaction is mediated by a set of mechanics, it falls under my definition. If it is not, it is simply role-playing.

I may be more confused now,but I don't think your spell casting analogy holds up.  Sure, the player cannot cast a spell, but what determines wether or not a spell connects is entirely up to the capability of the player, which would be the same as the capability of the character.  And what about low or no fantasy roleplay.  Or sci-fi using laser tag?  The characters ability to aim and hit someone would be exactly the same as the players.

What about the who done it role play mysteries?  You play a role, and there are winners and losers, but wether you win or lose comes down how well you can bluff, or investigate, and is not tied to the skill of the character but rather the player.

That is why there are different genres with traits that sometimes overlap. A mystery game is a mystery game. Laser tag is laser tag. There can be role-playing elements in a lot of things, but a Civil War reenactment is not a role-playing game. It's just role-playing.

A game from another genre can have role-playing elements, but that does not make it a role-playing game.

Civil War reeanactment is not a game.  The Mystery game are, and it isn't just role playing element, that is pretty much the core of the game, it completly relies on RolePlaying to be entertaining on almost any level, so why is it not an RPG?  I just don't understand why, in the game, the character MUST have a set skills different than the player.

Usually your points come across very well, but I feel like you are starting to get hand wavy by brushing off the games that don't fit your criteria by saying that they are just elements, even when those elements make up the core of the experience.

[mopotter]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Also note that some games which start with a predetermined protagonist offer you a greater range of dialogue options and plot choices than "nice", "uninterested" or "doosh". The OP mentions the Witcher series, which I would argue lend themselves to my point because even though Geralt has a face and a backstory, they went through significant effor to allow the player to use him as a blank slate and write a wide range of character traits and motivations into the story with their own decisions. Mass Effect started out this way, but by the time DA2 and ME3 were released, the stories and freedoms had become extremely limited by comparison.

Story decisions--not character decisions.

You want to change your plot, good for you. I want to roleplay.

TW games are not roleplaying games.

Have you played The Witcher 2? The decisions you make are character decisions as much as they are plot devices. The character of Geralt is yours to shape, you decide what his every motivation, behavior and personality trait will be from a great range of options. Best of all, they are never contrived 'good guy' or 'bad guy' options.

And this is not a game i will buy.  Any more than I will buy a game like Tomb Raider.  I don't like fixed characters.  If absolutely nothing else i want both male and female choices.  Otherwise there isn't any choice. 

Character customization is the main reason I play games like skyrim, fall out and all of the Bioware games.  Played way too many fixed characters in the 90's as much as I love Chrono Trigger, I don't have any interest in  going back to a fixed character game.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Shaigunjoe wrote...


Civil War reeanactment is not a game.  The Mystery game are, and it isn't just role playing element, that is pretty much the core of the game, it completly relies on RolePlaying to be entertaining on almost any level, so why is it not an RPG?  I just don't understand why, in the game, the character MUST have a set skills different than the player.

Usually your points come across very well, but I feel like you are starting to get hand wavy by brushing off the games that don't fit your criteria by saying that they are just elements, even when those elements make up the core of the experience.

I don't mean to be confusing, so let me try to be more clear. You are saying that in a LARP, whether or not a character is successful in any given task is dependent solely on the player's actual physcial skill at completing that task, and therefore it would not be an RPG under my definition.

What I am saying is broad enough to encompass that, as long as there is a set of mechanics which differentiates between distinct capabilities of players and characters.

i.e. If there is a way to say that this player may use spells because of the distinct capabilities of their character, but this other player may not because their character's capabilities do not include spell casting, then it falls under my definition. 

If there is no mechanic for dealing with distinction between the abilities of players and characters, and between each character themselves, it is not part of the RPG genre. 

i.e. If all players and characters have the same capabilities according to the mechanics in place, it is either just role-playing or a game from another genre that includes role-playing elements, but is not part of the distinct genre of RPGs. So I should have said this before, but there must be a distinction between the identities and capabilities of the characters from the players, and also between the characters and each other.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

mopotter wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Also note that some games which start with a predetermined protagonist offer you a greater range of dialogue options and plot choices than "nice", "uninterested" or "doosh". The OP mentions the Witcher series, which I would argue lend themselves to my point because even though Geralt has a face and a backstory, they went through significant effor to allow the player to use him as a blank slate and write a wide range of character traits and motivations into the story with their own decisions. Mass Effect started out this way, but by the time DA2 and ME3 were released, the stories and freedoms had become extremely limited by comparison.

Story decisions--not character decisions.

You want to change your plot, good for you. I want to roleplay.

TW games are not roleplaying games.

Have you played The Witcher 2? The decisions you make are character decisions as much as they are plot devices. The character of Geralt is yours to shape, you decide what his every motivation, behavior and personality trait will be from a great range of options. Best of all, they are never contrived 'good guy' or 'bad guy' options.

And this is not a game i will buy.  Any more than I will buy a game like Tomb Raider.  I don't like fixed characters.  If absolutely nothing else i want both male and female choices.  Otherwise there isn't any choice. 

Character customization is the main reason I play games like skyrim, fall out and all of the Bioware games.  Played way too many fixed characters in the 90's as much as I love Chrono Trigger, I don't have any interest in  going back to a fixed character game.

That is totally your choice and preferrence, and there's nothing wrong with that. Though, The Witcher 2 is an excellent game and I fear you may be missing out by casting it aside, but if you don't like it you don't like it.

What you are not doing, though is saying that The Witcher 2 is not an RPG because it has a predefined character, and for that I thank you.