289 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
You have to start with two of the three words, EA.  An RPG is a role-playing game.  It's a game in which you role-play.

In theory, yes. But how many words are there that are clearly compound words and yet mean more or something different than their constituents?

I argue that RPG is a gestalt term. It's more than just a game in which you role-play. I've already pointed out that you do that in every game.

I dislike how you use the word theory, but that's nitpicky.

Start with I said, not end with.

And, well, how many compound words mean something different than the combination of their words?  I'm honestly drawing a blank.

The difference between role-playing and role-playing game... is... wait for it... the game part!

The difference between a game and a role-playing game is... this is hard... the role-playing part.  How much "acting out a role" do you get in chess?  Checkers (be the disc!) or basketball?  Poker?  Breakout?  Simon Sez?  Thumb wrestling?

You COULD role-play while thumb wrestling, playing basketball, or during a game of chess--yet I doubt many people would take you seriously if you tried to tell them that those activities involved role-playing.

EntropicAngel wrote...
Role-playing isn't a side affect of playing Call of Duty. Role-playing is literally what you're doing. Role-playing is the interface through which you experience the game. It isn't happenstance.  
Role-playing and playing a game is analogous to reading and reading a book. Do you see what I mean? It isn't a side affect, it is literally the main activity.

You are shooting things.  Perhaps you are following a story.  I'm not a big FPS fan, but the ones I've played I could have imagined I was Papa Smurf with a gun or Rambo or James Bond or myself, it wouldn't matter.  Acting in character, making decisions that your character would based on their motivations or personality, is NOT what defines Call of Duty or most FPS games--you are, at best, playing a soldier simulator (simulation != role-playing) where everyone playing will do the same thing, complete the objectives which usually entail killing all the enemies on the field with weapons and nothing else.

Like how you said this before - "how many words are there that are clearly compound words and yet mean more or something different than their constituents?"  In Call of Duty you take on the role of a soldier.  But role, in this context, is different than role in role-play.  Taking on the role of something (I'm the forward on the soccer team, I'm the designated driver, I'm the one in my family who does the dishes) doesn't mean you are role-playing.

There's a world of difference between kids running around with plastic guns playing soldiers, and a group of people taking on the personas of vets dealing with the problems of PST and the VA to understand what soldiers are going through, and a game like Alpha Protocol.  One is a game with no role-playing, one is role-playing with no game, and the last is a role-playing game.

EntropicAngel wrote...
A game that you role-play in defines literally every game, ever

Football.  Jacks.  Hopscotch.  Foot race.  Table tennis.  Trivia.  Slap jack.  Countless examples of games with no role-playing.

What you are engaged in, here, is sophistry.

EntropicAngel wrote...
This is where I take my leap and argue that that type of role-playing is defining the character.

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.

EntropicAngel wrote...
I wish I could see some of these tabletops, as I'd bet you actually do do quite a bit of character definition.

Here - go listen to / watch some of these:
http://rpg.drivethru...oic-Roleplaying - where you will listen to them playing established Marvel super-heroes, really without defining ANYTHING about the characters that don't already exist

listen to these guys reviewing the DC Adventures game, and how much do they talk about "defining a character" in a way that doesn't involve stats or how game mechanics work?
  

you can go to the podcasts on all the 4th ED (and it slips into D&D Next) that the Penny Arcade guys play with Scott Kurtz (and, occasionally, Wil Wheaton) http://www.wizards.c...tegory=podcasts and even watch some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXqK3ZlqWI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzIJemFtXXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2knLHWucK1A and these are more the "made their own characters" kind of game

Or find any of dozens of YouTube videos of people role-playing, like this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVh4T5EsE10 - and you'll see ranges of storytelling, min-maxing, combat focused, character focused... the gamut of what a role-playing game session can look like.

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.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Based on your definition, Need for Speed Undercover is an RPG.

Each race levels up your "character's" attributes. You use the "character" to explore the fictional setting in the game--Palm Harbor or whatever. The actions--driving forward, reverse, turning, speeding, hitting other vehicles, racing other cars--are all made by the "character," though indirectly of course through you the player.

I find your definition inadequate.

And I'm not telling you anything about Planescape: Torment or the Ultima games or whatever. I'm telling you about a definition. You're letting it get too personal. This is about definitions, not about X game that you love and identify as X. If X is one thing and Planescape doesn't happen to be that, so what?

Now, the funny thing is is that people have said that based on my definition of an RPG, Planescape: Torment is the perfect RPG.

Alright, cheers.

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. 

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
And how in the name of Adams and Gaiman did I end up on the OTHER side of the argument about definitions? 

Other side? You were always against me on this one, weren't you?

We've had this talk before - I have existed, had opinions, and stated stuff outside of my interactions with you.  You need to think broader than just your experiences.

Here you go - http://ingenre.com/2...n-rpg-part-one/ , http://ingenre.com/2...n-rpg-part-two/ , http://ingenre.com/2...rpg-part-three/ .

In short, and to the specific point, I'm usually the one agreeing with StM that there are concrete definitions for words, or that there needs to be.

Usually.  I've been maturing / evolving on the "rpg" one over the last few years.

EntropicAngel wrote...
I would argue that the definition of what a planet is is fixed, outside of humanity's control. As such, our definition may be wrong. I would further argue that if Pluto is now not a planet, it never was one--but we erroneously thought it was one.

Does that make sense?

You are either invoking Aristotle's forms, or god, or something on the like.

All of that is metaphysical... well, stuff.  I'll avoid getting into that if I can.

But word definitions?  Those are made by humankind.  Our languages weren't handed down to us by something not human.  We created words to define our world, to communicate - humans did.  The only definition of any word is the one we (mostly) all agree on.

[MerinTB]

[quote]EntropicAngel wrote...
Role-playing and playing a game is analogous to reading and reading a book. Do you see what I mean? It isn't a side affect, it is literally the main activity.[/quote]
[/quote]

Sure, those two are analogous.  Role-playing can mean theraputic activity, and reading can mean consulting tarot cards.  Theraputic activity has as much to do with playing a game as a tarot divination has to reading a book--which is next to nothing, directly.

Context of words is important.  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.

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

[quote]EntropicAngel wrote...
I disagree with your "loose" definition of an RPG, because that defines every game where you manipulate a character--where you play as that character. In all of them, you assume that role. I argue a more stringent definition is necessary.
[/quote]

This might help, EA.

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

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 mai 2013 - 07:19 .

[MerinTB]

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 mai 2013 - 07:19 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

MerinTB wrote...

You are shooting things.  Perhaps you are following a story.  I'm not a big FPS fan, but the ones I've played I could have imagined I was Papa Smurf with a gun or Rambo or James Bond or myself, it wouldn't matter.  Acting in character, making decisions that your character would based on their motivations or personality, is NOT what defines Call of Duty or most FPS games--you are, at best, playing a soldier simulator (simulation != role-playing) where everyone playing will do the same thing, complete the objectives which usually entail killing all the enemies on the field with weapons and nothing else.

Like how you said this before - "how many words are there that are clearly compound words and yet mean more or something different than their constituents?"  In Call of Duty you take on the role of a soldier.  But role, in this context, is different than role in role-play.  Taking on the role of something (I'm the forward on the soccer team, I'm the designated driver, I'm the one in my family who does the dishes) doesn't mean you are role-playing.

There's a world of difference between kids running around with plastic guns playing soldiers, and a group of people taking on the personas of vets dealing with the problems of PST and the VA to understand what soldiers are going through, and a game like Alpha Protocol.  One is a game with no role-playing, one is role-playing with no game, and the last is a role-playing game.

There you have it. That is pretty much the broadest possible definition of a role playing game, and it works. 

Mine was a little more specific, but I think it would encompass all of the same games. 

Just to lay it out again, and so that EA can't come back to this thread and declare rhetorical victory after leaving the debate, I am going to try refining my definition with clear terms.

Essential components of an RPG:

• The player assumes (or 'acts out') the role of an imaginary person within a fictional narrative. The character may be of established background and traits, or may have a background and set of traits constructed by the player.
• The character, on behalf of the player, explores a fictional setting; i.e. the historical moment in time and geographical location in which a story takes place (wikipedia)
• A system of mechanics is in place in which the character is assigned statistical attributes to represent its personal capabilities and these attributes are increased depending on the actions of the character.
• The character's interactions with the fictional setting and the inhabitants thereof are mediated primarily by its statistical attributes according to a set of rules. The player, being of separate identity and capability from the character, directs these actions but the character carries them out indirectly. For example, the player may not be capable of picking locks, but where that is an attribute of the character it may do so according to the mechanics of the game*

*Note that this is different from an action game, in which the player's motor movements are translated by an input device directly into the character's actions. As such, the character is not capable of anything the player can not preform and the player's success is directly dependent on her own skills and capabilities to manipulate the input device. However, when success in game-play is based both on motor skill and the mediation of the character's attributes, the game can be said to fall under the Action-RPG subgenre. For example, the player successfully aims a weapon at a target, but according to the mechanics in place the character may still fail to hit or damage it depending on its statistical attributes.

Under this definition, DA:O would be considered an RPG, while DA2 and the entire Mass Effect series would be considered Action RPGs.

Need For Speed does not meet the criteria of an RPG, because a car is not a fictional character within a narrative (unless it is anthropormorphized) with distinct identity and capabilities apart from the player. It is also an action game which does not differentiate between the motor input of the player and the actions of the car.

Call of Duty does not meet the criteria of an RPG, because there is no system of mechanics for representing the character's abilities with statistical attributes, and it is also an action game which does not differentiate between the motor input of the player and the actions of the character.

Borderlands 2 meets all of the criteria of an RPG, with the distinction that it is an Action RPG because the success of the character's actions depends both on its statistical attributes and the player's motor input.

Every numbered Final Fantasy game meets the criteria of an RPG with no condition.

Planescape: Torment meets the criteria of an RPG with no condition.

Every edition of the Dungeons and Dragons table-top game meets the criteria of an RPG with no condition. 

[*]
[*]I feel this is more logical than EA's definition, under which Fallout 2 would be an RPG if the player created a character from scratch but would not be an RPG if the player selected a pre-generated character (the statistical attributes in that game determine which dialogue and story options you can access)

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 15 mai 2013 - 08:43 .

[zyntifox]

I don't have any definition, in terms of mechanics, of what makes an roleplaying game. For me whether a game is a roleplaying game or not is simply if i can roleplay in them. It's like pornography, you know it when you see it.

For example, BG, BG2, NWN, NWN2, Elder scrolls & DA:O i consider roleplaying games. Are there elements to these games that actively hurts the roleplayability, from my perspective, in them? Yes there is. But these elements are not sufficiently harmful to break my overall roleplaying experience.
Now, DA2 and the ME-series i don't consider roleplaying games since i can't roleplay without knowing what my character is going to say prior to saying it. I know there are a lot of people who prefer that approach to roleplaying but it is barrier to roleplaying i simply cannot breach.
That may be because i am old and have roleplayed in games in a certain way since i started playing DnD 2e in the early 90s and is quite set in my ways.

[Fast Jimmy]

Need For Speed does not meet the criteria of an RPG, because a car is not a fictional character within a narrative (unless it is anthropormorphized) with distinct identity and capabilities apart from the player. It is also an action game which does not differentiate between the motor input of the player and the actions of the car.

Just wanted to tackle this one... this is not correct. Need for Speed has the character as the driver. The player is not a magical car that can transform into different models before any given race. It is implied that the player is controlling the driver, who can enter one car versus another. Saying the "car" is the character is the same as saying that the character for Fallout is a piece of Power Armor.

In addition, the Need for Speed Underground games did have a plot revolving around the character. It wasn't deep, engaging or memorable... but you were the driver, no mistake. You were not a car.

Lastly, many driving games that let you upgrade and customize your car and which also have driving skill stats, such as drifting, acceleration, handling, etc. which can experience level progression.


Honestly, as with all sports games, the RPG leveling/stat elements are much stronger and deeper than what is seen in most RPGs these days, Bioware included.

I'm not trying to make the case for Need for Speed or racing games being classified as RPGs, but your definition, under that light, could have some of them meeting it. If I am driving a car in a fictional world and have stats for both my car and my driver, it could qualify as an Action RPG in your book if it included some semblance of a plot.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2013 - 01:23 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Cstaf wrote...

I don't have any definition, in terms of mechanics, of what makes an roleplaying game. For me whether a game is a roleplaying game or not is simply if i can roleplay in them. It's like pornography, you know it when you see it.

For example, BG, BG2, NWN, NWN2, Elder scrolls & DA:O i consider roleplaying games. Are there elements to these games that actively hurts the roleplayability, from my perspective, in them? Yes there is. But these elements are not sufficiently harmful to break my overall roleplaying experience.

Now, DA2 and the ME-series i don't consider roleplaying games since i can't roleplay without knowing what my character is going to say prior to saying it. I know there are a lot of people who prefer that approach to roleplaying but it is barrier to roleplaying i simply cannot breach.

That may be because i am old and have roleplayed in games in a certain way since i started playing DnD 2e in the early 90s and is quite set in my ways.

I prefer to take this rather untechnical but practical approach as well. If I don't know what is going to be said, I am not playing the role, I am directing a character. In that case, I'd say the term Adventure game is more applicable. In a King's Quest game, I can choose the "talk" option to direct my character to begin a conversation with an NPC. I can have my character give or use an time in correspondence with said NPC. But I cannot control what my character will say to said NPC.

In that light, DA2, the ME games, The Walking Dead games, the Quest for Glory games and the vast majority of FF games are not RPGs, but rather Adventure games (or Action Adventure games) with Stat Progression and dialogue options. Similarly, TES games like Skyrim, DA:O, DE:HR, Fallout, Planescape and Alpha Protocol are RPGs. Granted, some are better at allowing more roleplaying options than others... but they are still letting me roleplay the character, instead of directing a character to a certain choice, mindset, personality or decision. 

[Shaigunjoe]

I thought about this for a bit, and I think I agree. People seemed to be getting side tracked about what makes (or defines) a better RPG, though in your title you clearly stated it makes a better story, and I'm pretty sure it does.

What do some of the greatest fantasy books have in common? (LotR, WoT,GoT) They are all told from multiple perspectives. How many RPGs actually do this? FFVI has a segment where this happens, Suikoden III did a pretty good job of this and it was awesome, some fire emblem games do this to some degree, and even origins sort of did it, but it was poorly executed, but by and large, this story telling device is under utilized in video games.

Creating a character that solves everyone's problems and saves the world is not even a trope anymore, it is a cliche, and one that people want to embrace over and over again.

[Rawgrim]

Lobos1988 wrote...

MORE customization deepens the whole experience!

This. LESS lessens the experience.

[Shaigunjoe]

GodChildInTheMachine wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

You are shooting things.  Perhaps you are following a story.  I'm not a big FPS fan, but the ones I've played I could have imagined I was Papa Smurf with a gun or Rambo or James Bond or myself, it wouldn't matter.  Acting in character, making decisions that your character would based on their motivations or personality, is NOT what defines Call of Duty or most FPS games--you are, at best, playing a soldier simulator (simulation != role-playing) where everyone playing will do the same thing, complete the objectives which usually entail killing all the enemies on the field with weapons and nothing else.

Like how you said this before - "how many words are there that are clearly compound words and yet mean more or something different than their constituents?"  In Call of Duty you take on the role of a soldier.  But role, in this context, is different than role in role-play.  Taking on the role of something (I'm the forward on the soccer team, I'm the designated driver, I'm the one in my family who does the dishes) doesn't mean you are role-playing.

There's a world of difference between kids running around with plastic guns playing soldiers, and a group of people taking on the personas of vets dealing with the problems of PST and the VA to understand what soldiers are going through, and a game like Alpha Protocol.  One is a game with no role-playing, one is role-playing with no game, and the last is a role-playing game.

There you have it. That is pretty much the broadest possible definition of a role playing game, and it works. 

Mine was a little more specific, but I think it would encompass all of the same games. 

Just to lay it out again, and so that EA can't come back to this thread and declare rhetorical victory after leaving the debate, I am going to try refining my definition with clear terms.

Essential components of an RPG:

• The player assumes (or 'acts out') the role of an imaginary person within a fictional narrative. The character may be of established background and traits, or may have a background and set of traits constructed by the player.
• The character, on behalf of the player, explores a fictional setting; i.e. the historical moment in time and geographical location in which a story takes place (wikipedia)
• A system of mechanics is in place in which the character is assigned statistical attributes to represent its personal capabilities and these attributes are increased depending on the actions of the character.
• The character's interactions with the fictional setting and the inhabitants thereof are mediated primarily by its statistical attributes according to a set of rules. The player, being of separate identity and capability from the character, directs these actions but the character carries them out indirectly. For example, the player may not be capable of picking locks, but where that is an attribute of the character it may do so according to the mechanics of the game*

*Note that this is different from an action game, in which the player's motor movements are translated by an input device directly into the character's actions. As such, the character is not capable of anything the player can not preform and the player's success is directly dependent on her own skills and capabilities to manipulate the input device. However, when success in game-play is based both on motor skill and the mediation of the character's attributes, the game can be said to fall under the Action-RPG subgenre. For example, the player successfully aims a weapon at a target, but according to the mechanics in place the character may still fail to hit or damage it depending on its statistical attributes.

Under this definition, DA:O would be considered an RPG, while DA2 and the entire Mass Effect series would be considered Action RPGs.

Need For Speed does not meet the criteria of an RPG, because a car is not a fictional character within a narrative (unless it is anthropormorphized) with distinct identity and capabilities apart from the player. It is also an action game which does not differentiate between the motor input of the player and the actions of the car.

Call of Duty does not meet the criteria of an RPG, because there is no system of mechanics for representing the character's abilities with statistical attributes, and it is also an action game which does not differentiate between the motor input of the player and the actions of the character.

Borderlands 2 meets all of the criteria of an RPG, with the distinction that it is an Action RPG because the success of the character's actions depends both on its statistical attributes and the player's motor input.

Every numbered Final Fantasy game meets the criteria of an RPG with no condition.

Planescape: Torment meets the criteria of an RPG with no condition.

Every edition of the Dungeons and Dragons table-top game meets the criteria of an RPG with no condition. 

[*]
[*]I feel this is more logical than EA's definition, under which Fallout 2 would be an RPG if the player created a character from scratch but would not be an RPG if the player selected a pre-generated character (the statistical attributes in that game determine which dialogue and story options you can access)

I think I would challenge this one,As there are certainly diceless and statless RPG systems out there, there is more info on the role playing games stack exchange:
[*]A system of mechanics is in place in which the character is assigned statistical attributes to represent its personal capabilities and these attributes are increased depending on the actions of the character.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 15 mai 2013 - 01:51 .

[InfinitePaths]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Are you going to start an argument about what is and isn't an RPG again?

Why not

Seriously. How can you roleplay in TW when you're given a set protagonist who is part of an organization that essentially defines his world-views? And besides that, the game doesn't even have dialog options--it just has investigate and yes/no.

Oh no,no,no,no,no-NO.NO.NO.NO.NO.NO.NO JUST NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED THE GAMES!?!?!??!?!?!
Geralt is all the time in a moral dilema of what is right and what wrong.He doesn't have witcher set viewes.He is special.He doesn't support scoi'a tel in the books yet he died for the elves in the books.GOD!ISo much moral decisions.THE GAME HAS MORE DIALOGUE OPTIONS THAN DA2.So many ways to play the game.GOD.GOD.GOD.GOD FACEPALM

*rage**rage*

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 15 mai 2013 - 02:23 .

[Ieldra]

Since we're going that way, here's my definition of RPG:

A video game's RPGish-ness is determined by one attribute only:

The more I can make the character I am controlling look and act in-game in a way that makes them different from those characters played by other players, the more different characters I can play feel different from each other as I play them, the more the game is an RPG, regardless of actual game mechanics, stats, combat or not, how my actions affect the world etc..

Character variety is the cornerstone of RPGishness.

My rationale: In almost all games we "assume the role of a character", even in CoD, Thief, Tomb Raider etc.. That does not count. Roleplaying, traditionally, means using my imagination to create a character and act *that one* out. Naturally, video games can't be as adaptable as human GMs, but DAO shows quite well how things can be made to work. The different origin stories make the different Wardens feel different throughout the game, even though the actual differences in the story are minimal and the most you get after the origin story is finished is a different line of dialogue here or there.

The worst you can do to an RPG is to reduce behaviour options for the protagonist. It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same for different options (though of course different outcomes are desirable), because you define your character by what *you* do, not by how the world reacts to you.

The best you can to do increase the RP quality of a game is to add behaviour options based on actions or traits chosen by yourself at some point in the game.

This is why DA2 is actually not too bad in the RP department. You don't have as much choice about character creation as in DAO, but there are many added options depending on actions taken earlier, having asked certain characters certain questions, or your class. Characters still feel the same though, compared to DAO, and this is why DAO is the better RPG.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mai 2013 - 02:46 .

[GodChildInTheMachine]

 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.

You can't get around that part. If there is an 'implied' character in a game, or one that simply serves as an avatar for the player, that is not role-playing. If there is no narrative, that is not role-playing. 

If the player's actions translate directly into the character's, that is a not role-playing game.

You must have some set of mechanics which allows for a distinction between the capabilities of the player and those of the character. They are two different people with different skills. The player may be able to drive different cars with varying degrees of success, or may possess excellent accuracy in shooters. The character, being a distinct individual from the player, may not be able to do those things. The whole reason that the mechanics exist is to allow for a separation between the abilities of the player and those of the character.

Need for Speed still does not meet my criteria because IF there is a character, it has no identity distinct and separate from the player. It is the player's avatar in the digital world and is meant to be a direct representation thereof. There is also no system in place to differentiate between the individual skills and capabilities of the character, and those of the player. The character's skill at driving in game is the player's skill at driving in game. In this sense, it would be almost impossible for an action game focused entirely on one type of 'action' to be an RPG under my definition. 

Some racing games may have a set of mechanics for the progression of attributes, which I would say is definitely one of the elements of an RPG. That still doesn't make them RPGs under my definition.

However, I am prepared to accept that if a racing game meets all of my criteria, has a character in a narrative with an identity and skill set apart from the player's, and a system exists to differentiate between what the player and the character are each capable of doing in the game, it is an RPG.

To get back on topic:

A lot of people on this thread are saying that the level of control you have in directing the character's identity and interactions is part of what decides the quality of an RPG experience, and I completely agree with this. 

The more you can make the character a distinct individual with her own motivations, character traits and capabilities, the more of an RPG experience the game becomes. Some people might prefer a lighter RPG, some a more complex one.

I disagree with the OP's assertion that having more player choice and RPG elements in the game infringes on narrative quality. 

What I want personally, is the biggest damn RPG possible, with the greatest amount and complexity of the elements I listed under my definition. 

Modifié par GodChildInTheMachine, 15 mai 2013 - 04:50 .

[Shaigunjoe]

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)

[GodChildInTheMachine]

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.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

I'm not going to touch "what is a role-playing game" because that way leads to madness,

*waves*

Nowhere is the definition of role-playing require the role-player to create a new character.

I agree that character creation is not definitionally required, but with CRPGs I think it is often operationally required, as it's an easy means to provide the player enough information about his character (because the player is the source of that information) to enable effective roleplaying.

EntropicAngel wrote...

And, I never said a roleplaying game must allow you to create a new character, I just said that it requires that you be able to define the character--and by define, I don't mean "elf or dwarf, mage or warrior." Geralt is pre-defined. Further, Geralt's character is pre-defined.

I wouldn't entirely agree with this, either.  I don't think we need to define the character as much as we need to know the character.

The player needs to have extensive (or even exhaustive) knowledge of the character's personality and perspective in order to make decisions on his behalf.  Again, having the character define the character does allow this, and within the limitations of CRPGs this might be the only way to provide the player with sufficient information, but it's not definitionally required.

MerinTB wrote...

You have to start with two of the three words, EA.  An RPG is a role-playing game.  It's a game in which you role-play.

While you CAN role-play in Call of Duty, or while playing everything from Tetris to Monopoly, or in real-life while ordering coffee from Starbucks... the fact that you CAN do something during another activity DOESN'T define that activity.

It might be easier to make progress in this discussion if we look only at the necessary conditions, rather than the sufficient conditions.

Any final definition of roleplaying game is going to have both.  There will be necessary conditions - characteristics something must exhibit in order to be a roleplaying game - and sufficient conditions - characteristics which, when present, ensure than something is a roleplaying game.

Necessary conditions are much easier to define, I think, and are helpful in that they will exclude some games from consideration.  If we determine what disqualifies something from RPG categorisation, that's an important step, and something on which I think we can more easily find consensus.

Because any exclusive standard we must allow games we know to be roleplaying games to fall within the category.  The Gygax & Arneson games need to fit.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 mai 2013 - 05:37 .

[MerinTB]

This debate is making me actually want to go back and finish that A Look At series, to reach my conclusion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Ready for your head to spin?

Pluto - is it a planet?  For about 75 years it was.  Then an agency came along, gave a concrete definition of what a planet IS--characteristics an astonomical body must have to be called a planet--and Pluto stopped being one.

It is possible that, someday, some official body will come along and give a "this is the uptmost authority accepted definition of what a role-playing game is" and suddenly, when that is done, things like the Bard's Tale games, Diablo and maybe even The Witcher will suddenly be like Pluto - stripped of their defining label.

Perhaps not the best example.  First, I would argue that the formalisation of the definition means that Pluto was never a planet, and for 75 years the general consensus was merely wrong.

Second, the formal definition was, upon formulation, immediately misapplied.  I don't see how to take those rules and then have the Earth and the Moon categorised differently.  Either neither is a planet (based on not having cleared their neighbourhood of each other), or they both are (counting them together as a binary planetary unit that has cleared its neighbourhood).

Also, changing definitions retroactively like this sort of defeats the point of us arguing about definitions in the first place.  We want labels we can use to describe the package of features we would like to see in future games.  If we retroactively change the definition to exclude Ultima IV, for example, that makes it harder for players to ask for games that share Ultima IV's features.