289 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Let me give you all a simple definiton of role-play:

When you think and act like your character and not like you.

Creating your character is not a[color=rgb(255, 0, 0)"> ][i]IMMPOSIBLE [/color]non-MMO games.
You will always have pre-defined dialouge options and pre-defined story arcs.

I'm sorry, but that definition, while technically accurate, does not adequately define it as a genre.  What is the difference between a great RPG and a great FPS?  Say, Baldurs Gate and Quake, for example.

He's describing a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

He's saying that any game that is an RPG contains this, and that any game that does not contain this is not an RPG.

He is not claiming, as you seem to suggest, that any game that contains this is an RPG.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

Yeah, there are enough subtly differing 'dictionary definitions' of what role-playing is to make a wild variance in this context.

That is why I keep trying to push the mechanics side, because it allows for a clear definition of the genre which includes (hopefully) everything previously considered to be an RPG, while making a clear boundary line that disqualifies most everything which is CLEARLY not an RPG.

Well it looks like I'll have to re-think my logical pathways.

On the topic of mechanics...can something be an RPG in your opinion PURELY because of mechanics? Something like the FF games?

Was that you a couple pages back where we were discussing whether FF games are RPGs or not?

Yes, that is my standpoint. I figure that there are role-playing elements in a lot of games of different types (though I certainly wouldn't say that one is role-playing a plumber when they play Mario). Role-playing is its own activity aside from RPGs.

I would say that the FF games are unequivocally RPGs. They simply do not have a large amount of player agency where the narrative is concerned.

The reason I am making my definition so dependent on mechanics is simple. When you role-play, you are basically accepting to behave under another person's limitations instead of your own. You could do this in a narrative way, or you could do it in a combatitive way, or many other ways.

In a role-playing game, the act of taking on another individual's distinct limitations should be implicit in the mechanics. The mechanics reflect the difference in capabilities between you, your character, and your friend's character. They are all distinct individuals with different possibilities, capabilities and outcomes.

CoD doesn't count, because even though you could argue you are role-playing the protagonist, there is no way of differentiating his in-game capabilities from your own, or from another copy of him being played by another person. The character is not distinct.

This allows for the widest variation in how the players role-play, whether it be merely by combat or in affecting the story arc, while also firmly defining the boundaries of the genre.

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 15 mai 2013 - 11:17 .

[Jestina]

I had more options with my character in Dragon Quest than in the current crop of pseudo-RPG's. It makes no sense that they created this great fantasy world...then dumb down the game and highly restrict character creation to the point where you pretty much just don't have any say at all in it. In an RPG players should have most of the control when it comes to creating characters...the GM/developers sticks with creating the world to play in, coming up with stories, conflicts, etc. Now it's gotten to the point where they are sticking their nose more into the players domain(character creation), than focusing on the story and environment which should be their main priority.

[Nefla]

I have to wonder, what's the point in pages and pages of arguments over semantics and whether it not a game is an RPG and by who's definition, etc...wasn't this whole thread about what makes a good game and not what to classify it as?

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
The reason I don't, or wouldn't have thought, that's inconsistency is because I wasn't aware that there was NOT consensus on what role-playing means. I thought role-playing was a term everyone has consensus on.

This is new information, that role-playing is a term without consensus. This puts things in a different light.

...

You don't realize that words have fluid definitions, do you?

These hard, solid, "this and only this" Platonic definitions you (and sometimes StM) are looking for only exist in the abstract.

Again, Pluto.

I, once more, cringe that I find myself on the opposite side of this argument.  But the truth is that words don't have the same meanings to different people.

You cannot find a word that labels something complex and have everyone agree (even every dicitionary or encyclopdia) on what that label fully entails.  That's not how language works.

For example - "begs the question."  This shouldn't, didn't, and definitionally DOESN'T mean "leads to the question."  "Begs the question" is actually the name of a logical fallacy.  So when anyone says something like "He came home late last night, which begs the question where was he until two am?" they are WRONG.

Or are they?  I want to say yes, but most people are accepting that the vernacular sees the wrong use more than the correct use and therefore the definition will change.

Minor digression aside, there is nothing that you will find 100%, or even 99% agreement on.

[mopotter]

MerinTB wrote...

mopotter wrote...
No game with a fixed character is an rpg in the sense the table top games are.  Now rpg means something different to everyone who uses the term.     

But tabletop RPGs do allow for, some even focus on, pre-generated characters.  Most licensed property games.  From Army of Darkness to the new Firefly game from Weis Productions to Star Trek to Star Wars.... most tabletop games don't only provide pre-generated characters to pick, but also allow you to play as well-established iconic characters.

I, too, vastly prefer to create my own character (though I'm not adamantly against playing known icons, depending on the game and the guy running it) but that's not a set feature of tabletop vs. video game.

 I was a sheltered youth.  We only played one kind of table top, probably because a large part of the fun for us was making our characters.  I think there may be a couple of people I work with that do table top games during lunch, I may have to go check them out.  I'm glad I stopped by here.  

[Ninja Stan]

Sorry, but "what is an RPG?" type discussions are better left to the Off-Topic forum.

End of line.

[Ninja Stan]

As requested, unlocked and moved to Off-Topic.

[iOnlySignIn]

Nice! I'm the one who requested the unlock btw.

On topic, I think The Witcher series is a prime example. It has zero character customization, but that is one reason why the creators were able to make the story so much deeper and more complex. There are times when I absolutely hate being Geralt but I cannot deny his story is ever so engrossing.

Another example is Dragon Age 2. A lot of criticism it gets is actually the result of character customization.
- Suppose Hawke can only be of one gender. Then there would be no "everyone is bisexual" controversy.
- Suppose Hawke can only be a Warrior. Then there would be no "why doesn't anyone notice I'm using Magic" shennanigans.

Basically, a developer has 3 choices:

(1) Don't allow any character customization, and instead focus on story. This gives the writers the greatest creative freedom, because there would be no unforseeable inconsistencies, and the writers can give the character much deeper and more detailed backgrounds and motives. This is the route CD Projekt RED takes with The Witcher series.

(2) Allow for completely character customization, and relegate the story to a secondary role. This means that as long as the game's mechanics is solid people will ignore any and all flaws in the writing (or the lack of it thereof). This is the route Bethesda takes with Skyrim and the TES series in general.

(3) Try to have your cake and eat it. Allow some degree of character customization, but also try to make the story prominent and relevant. This means the writers have to cover all the possible choices and inclinations of the player. This is what BioWare tries to do in their games. It will either be a stunning success which leads to deeply satisfied and grateful players, or become a disaster because you can't cover everything due to time and resource constraints.

Approach (3) is brave, noble, heroic even. We should give BW more credit for it.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 16 mai 2013 - 08:06 .

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

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.

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I understand now what you are saying, but I do not understand why that is a core concept of the rpg genre.  Even wikipedia says:

Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.   Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

Ehphasis on the many games of the last sentance, and not all games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

You don't realize that words have fluid definitions, do you?

I'm aware that people think they do.

I think people are wrong about that.

Again, Pluto.

Pluto didn't stop being a planet.  Under the new definition, Pluto was never a planet.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Shaigunjoe wrote...



Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.  I understand now what you are saying, but I do not understand why that is a core concept of the rpg genre.  Even wikipedia says:

Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.   Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

Ehphasis on the many games of the last sentance, and not all games.

I'm still not quite sure you take my meaning. I've moved beyond hinging the definition on pass/fail type mechanics, such as the wiki entry refers to. I'm just saying that each character must have the possibility of being mechanically distinct from the next just as they would be narratively distinct. 

I understood that my definition would exclude a small number of more unusual games that may be considered RPGs. There are just some really unique cases out there, and without a distinction in mechanics you would have to make some kind of limitation on what type of role-play qualifies. That, to me, is a less optimal solution.

If you didn't define either, then a very large amount of games could be considered RPGs. I was just taking a stab at making a definition that would broadly fit the majority of titles that are already considered RPGs while excluding games that most people would not place in the genre. For example, I still wouldn't consider Clue an RPG even if it includes a fair amount of role-play.

I've since done a bit of research on statless systems, but what few I could find are radically different from the majority of RPGs in both video game and table-top mediums. The rules are usually very, very simple, and they seem more like a democratically moderated form of story-telling than an actual 'game'. I suppose that the game-play would qualify as 'structured decision-making', however.

As far as LARP goes, it seems like at least some variations would fit my definition. Here are a few examples quoted from user aramis at RPG.StackExchange:

Practical LARP - if you can't do it, neither can your Character. 
EG: SCA, Kingdom of Acre
Note: many of this type deny being ａ LARP at all.

Boffer LARP - Use of some weapon simulator, with limits based upon some character generation/advancement rules
EG: Amtguard, IFGS

Tabletop Game Style LARP - A set of rules, usually based upon some "Tabletop" RPG, adapted for play without a handy table
EG: Mind's Eye Theater, L5R Live Action, Blood & Tears
Note: Most such games have a "no touch" rule, and combat is mechanically simulated without acting it out.

Story-Only LARP - often, rules-lite or even almost no rules. Often, the only rule is "no touching." Combat may be prohibited, or may be autosuccess, or may be by narrator decision.[/list]

Both Boffer and Tabletop style LARP would count. The latter for obvious reasons, and the former because it does have a character generation system. The other two, however, would be just role-play.

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 18 mai 2013 - 05:51 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Nice! I'm the one who requested the unlock btw.

On topic, I think The Witcher series is a prime example. It has zero character customization, but that is one reason why the creators were able to make the story so much deeper and more complex. There are times when I absolutely hate being Geralt but I cannot deny his story is ever so engrossing.

Another example is Dragon Age 2. A lot of criticism it gets is actually the result of character customization.
- Suppose Hawke can only be of one gender. Then there would be no "everyone is bisexual" controversy.
- Suppose Hawke can only be a Warrior. Then there would be no "why doesn't anyone notice I'm using Magic" shennanigans.

Basically, a developer has 3 choices:

(1) Don't allow any character customization, and instead focus on story. This gives the writers the greatest creative freedom, because there would be no unforseeable inconsistencies, and the writers can give the character much deeper and more detailed backgrounds and motives. This is the route CD Projekt RED takes with The Witcher series.

(2) Allow for completely character customization, and relegate the story to a secondary role. This means that as long as the game's mechanics is solid people will ignore any and all flaws in the writing (or the lack of it thereof). This is the route Bethesda takes with Skyrim and the TES series in general.

(3) Try to have your cake and eat it. Allow some degree of character customization, but also try to make the story prominent and relevant. This means the writers have to cover all the possible choices and inclinations of the player. This is what BioWare tries to do in their games. It will either be a stunning success which leads to deeply satisfied and grateful players, or become a disaster because you can't cover everything due to time and resource constraints.

Approach (3) is brave, noble, heroic even. We should give BW more credit for it.

This is a good post. You can't really argue that The Witcher 2 has an uncommonly complex story and range of player choice within the narrative. Would they have been able to do that without a predefined protagonist? Possibly, but it would have required much more time and resources.

However, I feel like blaming those particular issues in DA2 on character customization may be mistaking correlation for causation.

It really wasn't necessary for BioWare to make every character bisexual, and that was a decision that made the characters considerably less plausible and consistent. I personally loathe the idea that the player base is so obsessed with romance sub-plots that BioWare has to pander to such a great extent. I think it's great that they consistently include relationships which are not all hetero-normative, but I think it would be better intended for them to write strong and consistent homosexual characters instead of just saying, "What do we care? Just have sex with everybody!"

Likewise, they could have done something to explain why Hawke gets away with his magic use. The fact that no one even really notices is kind of ridiculous.

All that said, I think you're mainly right about the three paths developers can take, and that BioWare is on a difficult one.

Still, part of me wants to say that this is a false dilemma - that there are 'out of the box' solutions for allowing character customization and a tightly woven narrative. Many games have done it before. While in this generation the technical focus of AAA games certainly makes things more complex, a clever team would be able to do both without tripling their efforts.

Hopefully, when DA:I is released, that is what we will find they have done.