416 réponses à ce sujet

[fairandbalancedfan]

The RPG purists complain so far is that (in my belief) ME 2 is geared towards and marketed towards the casual, console shooter crowd. As with many games, marketing tends to give a very different image from the end product. You need to give a quick 30 second video to get the adrenalin pumping and must make you want to buy that game. Gamers are a curious bunch. They always ask something of the devs and if they fix it, the next group comes in with a complaint. They forget that devs are human.



Oh and the general behavior on these forums isn't making a strong case for the ME crowd.

[Genoq]

Schneidend wrote...

Genoq wrote...

*I say "many" because MMOs and adolescent console kiddie JPG trash like Final Fantasy and Persona are obvious exeptions.

Despite that those have player-chosen statistics. Way to undermine your point, there. You've really helped the cause by making a complete fool of yourself. Kudos.

Read it again. "All most many* RPGs have been attempts to adapt the Pen n' Paper system to a single-player electronic format" I didn't say MMOs and JRPGs weren't RPGs, did I? I said they are not attempted adaptations of PnP RPGs; and if you have ever played one, you would have to agree.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 07:28 .

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry if I'm sick of having to say "1 + 1 = 2" all the time and a bunch of people saying "No it doesn't! 'Cause I don't think it does and times have changed!"

Perhaps if you refrained from your frequent indirect insults and an outright refusal to understand that what you are stating is not "1 + 1 = 2", but rather that you prefer one flavor of ice cream to another you might find your comments better recieved.  Half the issue is your perspective that you are educating inferiors who lack understanding, rather than regarding this as a discussion of peers equally (but differently) informed with varied preferences and perspectives.

I might also suggest dropping the usage of blatantly false hyperbole as an debate tactic, such as claiming Pong involve taking on a role.

Except that every RPG in existence has it. It's not the sole and only thing that defines it, but it is a major and necessary factor.

Perhaps those limited to consoles and computers, but I already demonstrated evidence that those not bound by such limitations have already existed without such systems.  As there is a way to fufill the purpose of an RPG without them in other mediums, I imagine eventually there will be a method to do so in electronic formats as well (and I suspect that such could even be achieved now by using a sufficient number of alternative RPG conventions and merely omitting that one aspect).  I would also say that anything as intrinsic as you claim this one thing (stat based progression) is to defining a genre would make any game utilizing it a "hybrid".  Of course that would mean GTA: San Andreas is an RPG, which I am not willing to agree with.

Which it shouldn't. If that's the case, while we're at it why don't we just cite every urban legend that a majority of people believe to be true as historical fact now. Things shouldn't change to suit the majority when the majority are wrong.

The evolution of language is necessary and useful.  Language has been evolving since its inception.  If you truly wish to define the concept of what cRPGs are, then I suggest you call them something akin to RPG based games.  As they have never actually fufilled the purpose of an RPG that is not bound to an electronic medium, they have only mimiced the formalized structured utilized in actual RPGs.  Are you even aware of how differently the english language alone was (both in grammar and in vocabulary) even 100 years ago?  Feel free to try and defy the evolution of language, it will be about as useful as choosing to cease the march of time.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry if I'm sick of having to say "1 + 1 = 2" all the time and a bunch of people saying "No it doesn't! 'Cause I don't think it does and times have changed!"

Yes. The situation is obviously as simply as 1 +1 and that's not at all why there are 15 pages devoted to it with most posters voicing a contrary opinion to your own and phrasing their responses in compelling ways.

This topic is all about interpretation and personal preferences. Don't try to pretend that it there's any sort of objective fact to either statement "ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1" or "ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1".

Ummmm... I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to the simple definition of an RPG and what it needs to qualify as one.

[Murmillos]

/facepalm

[Tokalla]

Kalfear wrote...

Terror_K wrote...


Which it shouldn't. If that's the case, while we're at it why don't we just cite every urban legend that a majority of people believe to be true as historical fact now. Things shouldn't change to suit the majority when the majority are wrong.

LOL, Terror, with the invention of Wiki, its amazing how many of these ummm people are wrong on a daily basis now.

What you said sadly isnt far off from happening

Language is merely a tool of communication.  If the majority believe a term means something, it gains that definition by virtue of common use.  This is how language works, and has worked for ages.

Linguistic evolution








The ongoing struggle between languages is a process very similar to evolution.
A word, like a gene, will travel and prevail according to its
usefulness. A word's fitness to survive may derive from being attached
to a desirable new invention or substance, or simply from being an
amusing or useful concept.

'Aspirin', coined in 1899 by its German inventor from the opening letters of Acetylirte Spirsäure
(acetylated spiraeic acid), immediately became an international word.
In a less serious context 'snob', first given its present meaning in
English in the mid-19th century, is now naturalized in a great many
languages.




As with evolution, the development of language is an irresistible force
- though traditionalists invariably attempt to build barriers against
change. The useful word 'hopefully' (long available to Germans as hoffentlich,
and meaning 'it is to be hoped that') has in recent years been
steamrollered into the English language by the public against howls of
protest from the purists.

On a grander scale, the French
government from time to time legislates ineffectually against English
words straying into French. These are the hybrids described as franglais. A good example of their impertinence is the enticing notice on a tweed jacket seen in a Parisian shop window: Très snob, presque cad (very snob, almost cad).

Though I do find it funny that someone so prone to spelling and grammar errors in their prior posts in this thread is now claiming a traditionalistic perspective regarding language.

[Soruyao]

Kalfear wrote...

So your logical and quality responce is basically to say

YOU ALL SUCK? Play on easier mode.

WOW, I stand corrected, I see how you and yours being so helpful and dispelling concerns.

You completely missed the most important part of his post. But thats pretty par for course with you guys.

Shooters
take the stratagy and thinking out of combat! IE: Combat is being
dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Thats NOT a improvement!
and its NOT a RPG concept!

RPGs challenge, not stupify the players.

Playing on an easier mode would indeed solve the majority of the problems for the people who only want to use their ARs and run around without using any of their other guns without worrying about ammo.  I suspect that enemies will be easier to kill and use cover less in easier modes, so you will be able to conserve ammo more easily.

Do you think there was any strategy and thinking in mass effect one combat?  Because there wasn't.

Every fight for every class (barring maybe adempt) went exactly like this:

1. Use every ability in your power wheel at once.
2. Shoot things in the face till they die.

Every single thing they did that changed the combat system for 2 is going to make combat take more strategy and thinking.   You have to decide which gun to use in a certain situation (based on your range from the enemy, your ammo levels, and your preferences for the weapons you have), whether to rush/retreat/cover, which powers to use and where to put each of your squadmates.

Having infinite ammo meant you didn't need to aim or use offensive powers.  Having immunity meant you didn't need cover.  Mass effect had the most dumbed down and simple combat out of every shooter I've ever played.   

Changing your difficulty (especially as a soldier!) did not make the game harder.  It made it just take longer.  It needed fixing.   Now it's going to actually take some skill to get through it on the harder difficulty modes.  This is a good thing, because it means you will always have a difficulty setting that is challenging/entertaining, even after you've put hundreds of hours into it and become awesome.

If you want to play the game in a way that weakens you artificially then maybe an easier difficulty will give you a similar level of difficulty while still allowing you to play that way.  Problem solved.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry if I'm sick of having to say "1 + 1 = 2" all the time and a bunch of people saying "No it doesn't! 'Cause I don't think it does and times have changed!"

Yes. The situation is obviously as simply as 1 +1 and that's not at all why there are 15 pages devoted to it with most posters voicing a contrary opinion to your own and phrasing their responses in compelling ways.

This topic is all about interpretation and personal preferences. Don't try to pretend that it there's any sort of objective fact to either statement "ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1" or "ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1".

Ummmm... I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to the simple definition of an RPG and what it needs to qualify as one.

And as this thread has so abundantly made clear, different people give different weight to the various elements of RPGs, which informs their expectations for ME2. The most important qualities I feel an RPG has is the tools and methods it gives the user to step in to the shoes of their avatar and make their journey the player's own along with a method of progression in both story and character.

Other people think having an inventory is a fundamental component of an RPG *shrug*

[Schneidend]

Genoq wrote...

Read it again. "All most many* RPGs have been attempts to adapt the Pen n' Paper system to a single-player electronic format" I didn't say MMOs and JRPGs weren't RPGs, did I? I said they are not attempted adaptations of PnP RPGs; and if you have ever played one, you would have to agree.

I'm inclined to disagree, actually.

Final Fantasy I was basically a complete rip-off of D&D in a simpler, single-player format. It even had Mind Flayers!

Also, I'd say MMO games like World of Warcraft are even more closely trying to emulate tabletop RPGs than console RPGs are, in some ways. They even have the social aspect present in a tabletop game.

Modifié par Schneidend, 22 janvier 2010 - 07:55 .

[Genoq]

Tokalla wrote...

As they have never actually fufilled the purpose of an RPG that is not
bound to an electronic medium, they have only mimiced the formalized
structured utilized in actual RPGs.

But they try, thats the entire assing point, to emulate the PnP system as best as possible. Comparing the evolving definition of "RPG" to the evolving english language is colossally stupid for one simple reason; The core mechanics (stat selection and progression) the method of use if you will, of PnP RPGs have not evolved or changed. At all! And unless there is a memo I haven't recieved, the core purpose of CRPGs, to emulate as best as possible the PnP experience, hasen't "evolved" either.

[Terror_K]

Tokalla wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry if I'm sick of having to say "1 + 1 = 2" all the time and a bunch of people saying "No it doesn't! 'Cause I don't think it does and times have changed!"

Perhaps if you refrained from your frequent indirect insults and an outright refusal to understand that what you are stating is not "1 + 1 = 2", but rather that you prefer one flavor of ice cream to another you might find your comments better recieved.  Half the issue is your perspective that you are educating inferiors who lack understanding, rather than regarding this as a discussion of peers equally (but differently) informed with varied preferences and perspectives.

I might also suggest dropping the usage of blatantly false hyperbole as an debate tactic, such as claiming Pong involve taking on a role.

The definition of a term is not a (or should not be) subjective thing. A definition is solid fact, and if one chooses to ignore said fact then they are wrong and not the definition.

Perhaps those limited to consoles and computers, but I already demonstrated evidence that those not bound by such limitations have already existed without such systems.

By linking to the ever reliable wikipedia... with a link that if taken to be true would call 95% of games out there RPG's. Wiki also contradicts what you said in its main definiton of RPG which states: "A role-playing game (RPG) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."

As there is a way to fufill the purpose of an RPG without them in other mediums, I imagine eventually there will be a method to do so in electronic formats as well (and I suspect that such could even be achieved now by using a sufficient number of alternative RPG conventions and merely omitting that one aspect).  I would also say that anything as intrinsic as you claim this one thing (stat based progression) is to defining a genre would make any game utilizing it a "hybrid".  Of course that would mean GTA: San Andreas is an RPG, which I am not willing to agree with.

Why not? It seems to fit your base definition of what an RPG needs to be an RPG. Along with most games.

The evolution of language is necessary and useful.  Language has been evolving since its inception.  If you truly wish to define the concept of what cRPGs are, then I suggest you call them something akin to RPG based games.  As they have never actually fufilled the purpose of an RPG that is not bound to an electronic medium, they have only mimiced the formalized structured utilized in actual RPGs.  Are you even aware of how differently the english language alone was (both in grammar and in vocabulary) even 100 years ago?  Feel free to try and defy the evolution of language, it will be about as useful as choosing to cease the march of time.

Some would call such things a devolution more than an evolution in a lot of cases. I suppose you think l33t and text speak to be an evolution of language too? What about all that hizzle shizzle hip-hop crap? Ignorance and misguidedness should not determine the meaning of a word or term.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

And as this thread has so abundantly made clear, different people give different weight to the various elements of RPGs, which informs their expectations for ME2. The most important qualities I feel an RPG has is the tools and methods it gives the user to step in to the shoes of their avatar and make their journey the player's own along with a method of progression in both story and character.

Other people think having an inventory is a fundamental component of an RPG *shrug*

While that is true (and I personally like ME's universe, story, presentation, characters and cinematic stylings far above the statistic elements) that doesn't mean that the qualities that different individuals don't find as weighty or important to their enjoyment of an RPG aren't necessary. The statistical factors related to ME2 might not be necessary for people to enjoy the game, but they are necessary for it to be considered and defined as an RPG.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Planescape: Torment = best role playing game of all time.



Planescape: Torment = one of the worst adaptations of the AD&D ruleset.



Honestly, I rest my case.

[Murmillos]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Planescape: Torment = best role playing game of all time.

Planescape: Torment = one of the worst adaptations of the AD&D ruleset.

Honestly, I rest my case.

But it still had one.. no?

[Darth_Shizz]

Murmillos wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Planescape: Torment = best role playing game of all time.

Planescape: Torment = one of the worst adaptations of the AD&D ruleset.

Honestly, I rest my case.

But it still had one.. no?

Much in the same way ME2 does, yes.

[Genoq]

Schneidend wrote...

Genoq wrote...

Read it again. "All most many* RPGs have been attempts to adapt the Pen n' Paper system to a single-player electronic format" I didn't say MMOs and JRPGs weren't RPGs, did I? I said they are not attempted adaptations of PnP RPGs; and if you have ever played one, you would have to agree.

I'm inclined to disagree, actually.

Final Fantasy I was basically a complete rip-off of D&D in a simpler, single-player format. It even had Mind Flayers!

Also, I'd say MMO games like World of Warcraft are even more closely trying to emulate tabletop RPGs than console RPGs are, in some ways. They even have the social aspect present in a tabletop game.

That Final Fantasy 1 ripped-off the D&D setting doesn't matter a jot. Mechanics wise, it was a rip-off of the pre-VII Ultima games with a dumbed down version of Wizardry's combat. It attempted to emulate two previous CRPGs, not the core PnP play method.

As for MMOs more closely trying to emulate PnP games than console RPGs, you're probably right. But thats like saying a bowl of mud is more closely trying to emulate chocolate mousse than a glob of manure is.

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

But they try, thats the entire assing point, to emulate the PnP system as best as possible. Comparing the evolving definition of "RPG" to the evolving english language is colossally stupid for one simple reason; The core mechanics (stat selection and progression) the method of use if you will, of PnP RPGs have not evolved or changed. At all! And unless there is a memo I haven't recieved, the core purpose of CRPGs, to emulate as best as possible the PnP experience, hasen't "evolved" either.

I realize what they are attempting to do, but that does not mean that  we should cease to define the genre based on its intended goal and instead define it solely upon the conventions used to try and reach that goal.  By limiting our definition of an RPG to the trapping formerly or currently possible, we lose sight of what those things are trying to achieve (which is the actual goal of the genre).  This is especially true since everyone values different aspects of roleplaying to varying degrees.  Some prefer more immersion, others more narrative, and others enjoy the actual system/game aspects.

Freeform RPGs.  They do exist (and I have known people who play them, though they are not to my taste), and as such there are forms of RPG that are not limited by the core mechanics you insist limit all RPGs.  I have previously posted a link explaining this.

Also, the evolution of the term RPG is an example of the evolution of language.  If you alter what a term means, you have changed its definition within the language that uses it.  There is no comparison being made, merely a demonstration that the term RPG has a fluid meaning based upon its common usage regardless of how specific individuals may wish for it to be otherwise.

[Schneidend]

Genoq wrote...

As for MMOs more closely trying to emulate PnP games than console RPGs, you're probably right. But thats like saying a bowl of mud is more closely trying to emulate chocolate mousse than a glob of manure is.

Sigh, I mean, that MMOs are more like PnP than single-player RPGs, because they have the mechanics AND the social aspect.

[Genoq]

Tokalla wrote...

Genoq wrote...

But they try, thats the entire assing point, to emulate the PnP system as best as possible. Comparing the evolving definition of "RPG" to the evolving english language is colossally stupid for one simple reason; The core mechanics (stat selection and progression) the method of use if you will, of PnP RPGs have not evolved or changed. At all! And unless there is a memo I haven't recieved, the core purpose of CRPGs, to emulate as best as possible the PnP experience, hasen't "evolved" either.

I realize what they are attempting to do, but that does not mean that  we should cease to define the genre based on its intended goal and instead define it solely upon the conventions used to try and reach that goal.  By limiting our definition of an RPG to the trapping formerly or currently possible, we lose sight of what those things are trying to achieve (which is the actual goal of the genre).  This is especially true since everyone values different aspects of roleplaying to varying degrees.  Some prefer more immersion, others more narrative, and others enjoy the actual system/game aspects.

Freeform RPGs.  They do exist (and I have known people who play them, though they are not to my taste), and as such there are forms of RPG that are not limited by the core mechanics you insist limit all RPGs.  I have previously posted a link explaining this.

Also, the evolution of the term RPG is an example of the evolution of language.  If you alter what a term means, you have changed its definition within the language that uses it.  There is no comparison being made, merely a demonstration that the term RPG has a fluid meaning based upon its common usage regardless of how specific individuals may wish for it to be otherwise.

1st. What is PnP roleplaying's "intended goal" or "actual goal" if not precisely what it already does? What grand and lofty "goal" are you talking about. If you think the original intent behind RPGs was to fully immerse yourself in the life and actions of your character, don't you think the first PnP games would be more like that than the highly abstract, stat heavy combat games they were?

Maybe Gygax and Arneson should have dressed up in plate armor, shoot PCP and atropine and then run around in the woods if that was their goal.

2nd. I don't care if there are "freeform RPGs". CRPGs and the like are not based on freeform or LARPing or anything other than traditional Pen and Paper RPGs.

3rd.How many times do I or anyone else have to say that the so-called evolving definition of "roleplaying" doesn't have jack-****e to do with the definition of roleplaying in the context of PnP core fundamentals, in which it is unchanged and unchanging; exept by misinformed ignorants with pancake-level reading comprehension.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 09:13 .

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

The definition of a term is not a (or should not be) subjective thing. A definition is solid fact, and if one chooses to ignore said fact then they are wrong and not the definition.

Fact: Language is not a static thing, and it never has been. 

Fact: Change is constant.

Delude yourself if you wish, but what a word means today may not be the same in the future (just as it may not have been in the past).

By linking to the ever reliable wikipedia... with a link that if taken to be true would call 95% of games out there RPG's. Wiki also contradicts what you said in its main definiton of RPG which states: "A role-playing game (RPG) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_role-playing_game

Evolution of language (as well as most things) is an unstoppable process.

Why not? It seems to fit your base definition of what an RPG needs to be an RPG. Along with most games.

What definition of RPG is that, as I don't recall ever actually stating a direct definition.  As of yet I have largely simply commented that the definition of the genre shouldn't be merely restricted by the means it uses to obtain its purpose.  Perhaps you have incorrectly assumed I have a rigidly structured definition in which you desire to poke holes?  If so I feel you are headed for disappoinment.

Personally, I do not feel it allows the extent of freedom necessary in an rpg.  While it is certainly a sandbox game with a system of stat progression, I feel it lacks in other more vital development areas for the character.

Some would call such things a devolution more than an evolution in a lot of cases. I suppose you think l33t and text speak to be an evolution of language too? What about all that hizzle shizzle hip-hop crap? Ignorance and misguidedness should not determine the meaning of a word or term.

"Ignorance and misguidedness" exist in seeking to defy the purpose of language to preserve it as a static entity.  I am not fond of many newer language conventions, but that does not allow me to claim they are false or wrong.  The point of language is to communicate with others, therefore the masses define language and not the other way around.  I have come to accept that my usage of language tends to have a dated quality  to it already (though I try and use the terms that display this infrequently).  While I may not appreciate the current trends in language, I can no more stop them than I can the sun rising.  Spending my time and energy attempting to cling to a faulty belief in the inherent correctness of my language over newer linguistic innovations is not only pointless, but wasteful.

[Decho the Dolphin]

To me an RPG is a game in which one takes on and becomes a character for the purposes of the game. All of the statistics and equipment is an aside to that, albeit one commonly associated with the genre.

[Genoq]

Schneidend wrote...

Genoq wrote...

As for MMOs more closely trying to emulate PnP games than console RPGs, you're probably right. But thats like saying a bowl of mud is more closely trying to emulate chocolate mousse than a glob of manure is.

Sigh, I mean, that MMOs are more like PnP than single-player RPGs, because they have the mechanics AND the social aspect.

I'd argue that the "social" aspect of MMOs bears no resemblance to the social aspect of a PnP RPG. I'd also argue that the mechanics of your average (Read: All) MMO are so far diluted from the source material compared to, say, the original two fallouts or Arcanum, that to say they are more like PnP RPGs than those aforementioned games are is laughable.

But MMOs are RPGs by definition; despite what I think of them.

[Soruyao]

Tokalla wrote...

"Ignorance and misguidedness" exist in seeking to defy the purpose of language to preserve it as a static entity.  I am not fond of many newer language conventions, but that does not allow me to claim they are false or wrong.  The point of language is to communicate with others, therefore the masses define language and not the other way around.  I have come to accept that my usage of language tends to have a dated quality  to it already (though I try and use the terms that display this infrequently).  While I may not appreciate the current trends in language, I can no more stop them than I can the sun rising.  Spending my time and energy attempting to cling to a faulty belief in the inherent correctness of my language over newer linguistic innovations is not only pointless, but wasteful.

Indeed.   A good example is the fact that no matter how much any of us try, the word "gay" is never going to mean "happy and carefree" to the population at large again.

Language changes over time whether we like it or not.  The slang we grew up with is going to age faster than we will, and we will be forced to adapt or be used to sounding like old fogeys.

Dagnabbit!

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

1st. What is PnP roleplaying's "intended goal" or "actual goal" if not precisely what it already does? What grand and lofty "goal" are you talking about. If you think the original intent behind RPGs was to fully immerse yourself in the life and actions of your character, don't you think the first PnP games would be more like that than the highly abstract, stat heavy combat games they were?

Maybe Gygax and Arneson should have dressed up in plate armor, shoot PCP and atropine and then run around in the woods if that was their goal.

2nd. I don't care if there are "freeform RPGs". CRPGs and the like are not based on freeform or LARPing or anything other than traditional Pen and Paper RPGs.

3rd.How many times do I or anyone else have to say that the so-called evolving definition of "roleplaying" doesn't have jack-****e to do with the definition of roleplaying in the context of PnP core fundamentals, in which it is unchanged and unchanging; exept by misinformed ignorants with pancake-level reading comprehension.

Well if the definition is unchanged and unchangable, then I suppose this would be it (though personally I put a bit more to it than just this):

The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group,
cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the
value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in
whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the
Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of
vicariously experience those things.  
-Gary Gygax (www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html)

Of course, he also has the following quote attributed to him (www.allenvarney.com/rev_04a.html):

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. 
-Gary Gygax?

If you thought that Gygax and Arneson were merely wanting a personalized wargame, then I believe you have missed the mark (and clearly not read much of Gygax's writing on gaming and AD&D).  While they certainly weren't simulationists, I am quite certain that at least Gygax was at least as much narrativist as gamist.  He may not have considered gaming an art, but he always felt the story and characters mattered more than the rules.

[Genoq]

Tokalla wrote...

Well if the definition is unchanged and unchangable, then I suppose this would be it (though personally I put a bit more to it than just this):

The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group,
cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the
value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in
whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the
Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of
vicariously experience those things.  
-Gary Gygax (www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/arts/05gygax.html)

Of course, he also has the following quote attributed to him (www.allenvarney.com/rev_04a.html):

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. 
-Gary Gygax?

If you thought that Gygax and Arneson were merely wanting a personalized wargame, then I believe you have missed the mark (and clearly not read much of Gygax's writing on gaming and AD&D).  While they certainly weren't simulationists, I am quite certain that at least Gygax was at least as much narrativist as gamist.  He may not have considered gaming an art, but he always felt the story and characters mattered more than the rules.

Read this again.
"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group,
cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the
value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in
whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the
Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of
vicariously experience those things"

He didn't say anything about the defining fundamentals, the objective necessary and sufficient conditions. He is talking about what he perseives as the "value" of a role-playing game, which is purely subjective. I may value a well-written script in a film, but a well written script is neither necessary nor sufficient for the film to qualify as such.

As for the second quote; I wonder how literally that statment was meant to be taken, or what rules he is referring to.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 10:18 .