583 réponses à ce sujet

[phantomrachie]

Ad 1) Does not make it an RPG, character creation =/ RPG

 

 

No but it is part of the characteristics of an RPG which is what I was listing - you also have stated that you want your cRPGs to be as close to Pen & Paper as possible so the ability to create a character and dictate what they do must be key for you, since that is very important in Pen & Paper RPGs

 

 

 

Ad 2/3) So far the only impact I've seen is either pick mages or templars. I did not finish the game, but from what I read there is no real meaning what you do in the side content, who you back, what you gather, how strong regions you make, etc, for the last part of the game. On a side note, i liked how the Hinterlands were changing when I cleared templars and mages, but nothing really beside that point, maybe also using the dam in one of the regions and closing a rift there that changed environment gave some satisfaction.

 

 

There is meaning the in game to what you do, just potentially not outside the game.

 

In DA:I, I'm able to build bridges over swamps or repair older bridges to gain access to other areas and shape the land.

I can exile or support the Grey Wardens, disband or support the Templars, enslave or ally with the Mages.

I can choose the leader for Orlais, reconcile lovers and decide the fate of my enemies.

 

All of these are choices, all of these have some sort of consequences be it large or small.

 

Not every decision you make has to have some grand impact on the plot, the important thing is that you get to make a choice. If you want all your choices to 100% impact that plot then go read a choose your own adventure novel.

 

 

 

Ad 4) I have companions that I could not care less about. Most of them lack the character and what you say is sometimes different from what I would pick as a given option. I also heavily dislike the color coded dialog wheel... but I guess there is some merit to that, I just find all the characters dull, aside of Cassandra and Varric I could have a mabari dog in the place of all the others and it would be light years ahead of them.

 

 

So? - not caring about the companions doesn't mean they aren't there, doesn't mean they are not another tick in DA:I RPG box.

 

I really like the companions in DA:I, I didn't like most of the companions in Skyrim, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to claim that Skyrim is not an RPG.

 

 

 

Ad 5/6/7) So does almost every single game these days, does it make watchdogs an RPG? I hate the concept of class bound weapons... why cant I use dual wield as a warrior? or a sword as a mage? I understand the limition of magic staffs, due to their magical nature, but other than that I have no idea why to implement such thing

As a side note, the game severly lacks in the loot department. the items are generic and just bland even the boss battles with dragons drop nothing notable. Comparing that to for example well crafted loot drops and uniques from BG series makes this game looking really bad. I had more fun collecting various pieces of dwarven armor in the DA:O than I have checking the loot of this game whenever something drops. Again too much MMO in an SP game.

 

 

Again - I was stating they were  characteristics of an RPG. Just because other game types now use them doesn't mean they weren't originally RPG characteristics - you know like in your beloved Pen and Paper games.

 

Class bound weapons have been in RPGs since DnD & they have been removed, added and removed again. Many Pen & Paper RPGs still to use them.

 

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is not a feature of an RPG.

 

 

 

Ad 8) which is based on a really bad MMO design of crafting. I find it really bad, I'd rather have limited crafting like in BG 2 over this MMO piece of s... Even just marking nodes on the map like quarry or logger camps for all other types of resources and then gating the available crafts based on the amounts of nodes marked would be much better than just running around and wasting time grabbing every collectible in the map...

 

 

I repeat myself just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it is not a feature of an RPG.

 

 

Ad 9) FarCry does to, or so does Tomb Raider and Assassins Creed. Explroation =/ RPG, it's what you can do in those places that differentiates it from other games with exploration feature.

 

 

Again this is a feature of an RPG which in conjunction with the rest makes up an RPG. Some other games may also do it, but without other features it is not an RPG.

 

Think of it like this; your eyes are a feature of your face, but if you just had two eyes then you wouldn't have a face, you'd have two eyes peering out of your neck.

 

In a similar fashion, exploration, crafting, character creation etc are features of an RPG but a game having one or two of those features alone doesn't make that game an RPG. 

 

 

I agree with the last point, while the game has the features, which COULD make it a good RPG, it is lacking on almost each of them.

 

You have failed to state what RPG elements you think are lacking, simply that you don't like the way DA:I does them.

 

I don't like FF13, I don't like the way it has implemented it's RPG mechanics, but I would never claim it is not an RPG.

 

You can't say a game is not an RPG just because you don't like it. DA:I has all the elements of an RPG, many of those elements are featured in the original pen & paper RPGs. You can say you don't like the RPG mechanics in DA:I or that you don't like it , but *all together now* just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it is not an RPG.

[AlanC9]

Show me a PnP RPG that currently, wait... in the last 10 years hard locks your abilities to wear armor or wield weapon.

Hell, I'm not familiar with too many recent PnP RPGs with classes. Though that probably says more about my PnP tastes.

[katokires]

People said the exact same things as that when Origins was released, and how it wasn't BGII, and when Mass Effect 2 stripped away the RPG elements, and...

Because that is what happened. Each game is worse than before since Baldur's Gate 2. BG was interesting, BG2 a masterpiece, IWD enjoyable and so IWD2, NWN is the best DnD gameplay (from Bioware, NWN2 is the godlike game from all time but it is not Bioware) for me because I love 3rd edition but game was already going th wrong way with story and choices, KOTOR is the project of defeat that put Bioware on the track of popularization and demise, they started the 3 classes template, but they still had DnDish mechanics. DAO was amazing, I mean, when it comes to the story and choices it is one of the best Bioware games but combat was way too much simple, I still managed to like since stats had certain complexity and the 3 specialization thing (counting Awakening) let my build complex and interesting characters. DA2 was all bullshit since everything was simplified,, stats my only love were simplified to the point they were unrecognizable, I was pretty certain Bioware couldn't do anything less RPG than DA2... but they did.

It is a pretty clear downhill from BG2 onwards.

And it is obvious that it did not need to be that way when you see Divinity Original Sin, Shadowrun, Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity you can imagine this games with Bioware writting and think how amazing their games could have been if they were still RPG. If Thedas was less interested in being a Michael Bay movie (rawgrim copyright) it could be expanding each game with more classes, more races, more complexity to the stats and the gameplay, to the point that you would need to study 10 years to pass the tutorial, and as ridiculous as it sounds, as much as it sounds like I'm making fun of myself, I'm not, I am that ridiculous. But they could add a Retarded Inquisition fan mode where everything was automatic and you just had to hold left mouse button to kill enemies too, very easy to implement so that everybody could enjoy, even people who think you need tactical cam to play Inquisition because they have headache trying to understand how to hold left mouse button.

[NextGenCowboy]

Regardless of what points you make, I want you to know -- as long as you keep using retarded to refer to something you dislike, I'm not going to take a thing you say seriously.

 

The fact that you desire a game where you need 10 years of studying to get past the tutorial says a lot. If that's what you want, then you're looking towards the wrong medium for your enjoyment. Good day, sir, or madam.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

I'm just trying to extract a principle through which we could judge other games. It appears to be that RPGs must allow choices that fulfill the full range of the morality spectrum in order to be an RPG. Is that a fair summation?

 

(Too long didnt read at the bottom)

 

I guess this is tricky because not only do people have varied opinions on right and wrong but morality is also not universal. I believe Nietzsche (spelling?) addressed this with his portrayal of slave vs master morality. 

A dictator ruling a village could rule with an iron fist and crush those opposing him, yet due to his strength stop invaders from attacking and thus providing safety. A benevolent ruler might be super "good" yet this goodness causing him to be weak and let his village become conquered. Not only is morality and ethics variable from a personal standpoint but also from a cultural one. Even thematic issues like abortion can be wildly disagreed upon being morally right vs morally wrong. 

 

My opinion is that the principle should be that options should be given to satisfy who the player wants the character to be. Even if the choice is not doable ingame due to the narrative, the dialogue should be there to give us the option to roleplay who we want to be. 

For example:

Even if I can not use my mark to enter the black city - I want to be given the choice to tell Solas that I would want to if I knew how.
Even if I can not become a tyrant like the envy demon shows me - I want to be given the choice to tell the envy demon that "Hey, this is actually my plan!"
Even if I can not buy slaves or introduce slavery to Thedas - I want the choice to tell Dorian that I wouldnt mind slaves or that I approve of slavery.
Even If I can not join the Tevinter - I would want the choice in dialogue to show that I am pro-Tevinter.

So to answer your question:

I understand that the GM, in this case Bioware - must impose restrictions on how much you can actually do to define your character in order for the narrative to make sense and for the overall story to proceed somewhat like they plan to according to their world. The optimal thing would be, yes, allow choices that fulfills the full range of the morality spectrum. However, if these choices are not implemented due to restrictions - then the intent of your character should be expressed in dialogue to fulfill your wish for what/who you want your character to be. 

So I cant join the Tevinter? Fine.
But not being able to tell Dorian "I actually admire the Tevinter" robs me of a character defining opinion.

 

All choices in the morality spectrum for all cases? Undoable. But there should be some parts where you can. DA:I gives almost NO room or choice to be a machiavellian / darker personality type (none actually?).

 

Almost all dialogue in Inquisition has 2-6 options all leading towards "good" or "neutral" stances in the traditional sense. If you are lucky you can get away with being neutral. So the problem with roleplaying and DA:I is that there is minuscule to no options to be a darker more opportunistic power-hungry anti-hero.

 

To show you the failure of DA:I as a roleplaying game, let me demonstrate who I wanted my necromancer to be. I'll only use a few of the things I wanted: 

Someone who would use his power to dissolve or destroy the chantry.
Someone who would (or would try to) join or replace Corypheus.
Someone who only did all this as an opportunist who wanted power.
Someone who disliked mother giselle and wanted to have her killed.
Someone who wanted to use his mark to enter the black city.
Someone who admires the Tevinter.
Someone who endorses slavery. 

See here is the problem. Not only can I not do any of these. I am also denied the option to state that this is the intentions or wishes of my character in dialogue. So I am two-fold denied roleplaying my necromancer, strike one in actual choice, strike two on showing intent through dialogue.



TOO LONG DIDNT READ

 

RPGs should allow a wide variety of choices that includes the full range of the morality spectrum through actual action and consequence.
Where actions are not allowed or restricted, dialogue should let you reveal your characters intent in this spectrum to satisfy the player in reaching his core-personality in which he/she is roleplaying.

 

DA:I problem: Both in action + consequence and in dialogue, your character is extremely linear and one dimensional without any real depth. Stripping away large parts of the meat of what can be considered a role-playing game until only the bones remain - which in this case is not our character but Bioware's Inquisitor.
 

[Giantdeathrobot]

It is obviously action. If your actions success are defined by... actions it is... action.

RPG -> [Stat X + (sometimes) Random Number] vs Enemy Defense = Success/Fail
Action -> Press button + your accuracy = Success/Fail

DAO -> Attack vs Enemy Defense
DAI -> If you are in a possible range and aiming at the enemy you hit, unless he uses a skill to evade, then you use another fo follow and so on... action, action, action

Happens in jRPG too. Zelda -> Action, Final Fantasy (early) -> RPG

 

So basically, everything a RPG is boils down to a To Hit stat for you?

 

You do realize this means that Fire Emblem, XCOM, Total War, Diablo 2, Deus Ex, FTL Faster than Light, Company of Heroes and even bloody World of Warcraft are ''pure-blooded'' RPGs while The Witcher, New Vegas and Skyrim aren't, do you? Which is a stupid way to classify those games. RPGs are about role-playing within a world. Plenty of genres have chance to hit. No other genres than RPG propose that the player takes on the role of a character and shape the world via their decisions and intereactions.

 

EDIT: @TevinterSuprematist: Then you'd have the problem of people saying your character can only pay lip service to those ideals and cannot live up to them in-game.

 

Besides, every single RPG in the history of ever has severe restrictions on how they can act. Even on tabletop, it's just not true you can do or say whatever you want. Even New Vegas, probably the most open-ended RPG in existence, doesn't allow you to ultimately side with most factions in the game or proclaim your love of slavery (albeit you can tacitely endorse it). I wanted a character who could join the Fiends or Great Khans and lead them to victory and I simply couldn't.

 

I can understand that Inquisition doesn't give you the choices you want and you dislike that. That's a fair point. But I don,t think it makes it Not An RPG. The game favors political decisions over black and white moral ones, so yes it does mean you cannot be a card-carrying slaver, but you can very much play as a Game of Thrones-esque power player which most RPGs don't allow you to. Get some, lose some.

[ThreeF]

(Fire Emblem is an RPG, it's just a tactical one)

 

 

but most importantly.... "what is art rpg??"

[Giantdeathrobot]

(Fire Emblem is an RPG, it's just a tactical one)

 

 

but most importantly.... "what is art rpg??"

 

Ah, but is a Tactical RPG the same as a member of pure-blooded RPG master race? Or simply a worthless mongrel not worthy of the title, just like the dreaded ''Action RPG'' monicker, used to designate the mindless drivel that keeps the plebs entertained?

 

I tire of the ''what is an RPG'' debates very fast. It's almost always a front for ''game I like is a True RPGtm, game you like is Not An RPGtm''.

[CronoDragoon]

See here is the problem. Not only can I not do any of these. I am also denied the option to state that this is the intentions or wishes of my character in dialogue. So I am two-fold denied roleplaying my necromancer, strike one in actual choice, strike two on showing intent through dialogue.

 

I understand why based on the above DA: I may have been unsatisfactory (in this respect) for you, but I'm not sure we can use this to judge whether a game is an RPG or not. If the criteria is whether the game allows one to express the particular character they have in mind, then by definition whether something is an RPG or not will vary depending on the player. If the criteria is then changed to judge the game based on the maximum amount of possible character types it can support, then it doesn't really have anything to do with being "darker" or not anymore, since a game with 3 different types of "good" characters will be as much an RPG as a game that has a "good-neutral-evil" split. Then we have the "full morality spectrum" expression of the criteria we discussed earlier.

 

Of the 3 above interpretations, I actually favor the second one, as it makes more intuitive sense to me that what matters is possible variance, and not necessarily the extent of the variance. It could, for example, be the case that expressing one character archetype in more nuanced ways is more satisfying than expressing 3 character archetypes that are portrayed in broad strokes. I find this to be relevant to Inquisition, especially considering your statement that all Inquisitors feel like the same character. I very much disagree with this, and feel there is quite a bit of nuanced variance even if our larger alignment is predetermined. Just for example, in a game with religious faith and organized religion as the central driving theme, Inquisition succeeds in presenting different ways of expressing the Inquisitor's faith: Andrastian, athiest, agnostic, Elven Pantheonist. Additionally, you have wiggle room between these, such as playing a virtuous atheist or one out for their own gain (a good example being the dialogue choice when becoming Inquisitor).

[ThreeF]

Ah, but is a Tactical RPG the same as a member of pure-blooded RPG master race?

Sweet Maker, no! Never! The horrors you inflict upon the masses with such thoughts! Contain yourself.

 

 

I tire of the ''what is an RPG'' debates very fast. It's almost always a front for ''game I like is a True RPGtm, game you like is Not An RPGtm''.

Ditto.

[Lilithor]

So basically, everything a RPG is boils down to a To Hit stat for you?

 

You do realize this means that Fire Emblem, XCOM, Total War, Diablo 2, Deus Ex, FTL Faster than Light, Company of Heroes and even bloody World of Warcraft are ''pure-blooded'' RPGs while The Witcher, New Vegas and Skyrim aren't, do you? Which is a stupid way to classify those games. RPGs are about role-playing within a world. Plenty of genres have chance to hit. No other genres than RPG propose that the player takes on the role of a character and shape the world via their decisions and intereactions.

I was talking about gameplay so I won't comment on this nonsense.

[NextGenCowboy]

Ah, but is a Tactical RPG the same as a member of pure-blooded RPG master race? Or simply a worthless mongrel not worthy of the title, just like the dreaded ''Action RPG'' monicker, used to designate the mindless drivel that keeps the plebs entertained?

 

I tire of the ''what is an RPG'' debates very fast. It's almost always a front for ''game I like is a True RPGtm, game you like is Not An RPGtm''.

 

How are we supposed to classify something like Star Ocean then? It's got To Hit stats, defensive stats, auto-evasion, as well as manual evasion. Action-RPG, in real-time, but with pause. Exploration, Dialogue Choice/Alternate Character Recruitment, but it's got a fixed narrative. We're dealing with the Platypus of RPGs here people!

 

I agree with this sentiment. Let's just say, whatever I like is an RPG, and whatever I don't isn't. It's much easier, and more clear that way.

[phantomrachie]

I was talking about gameplay so I won't comment on this nonsense.

 

Translation:

 

I don't have a response to your point so I'm going to take my ball and go home.

[CronoDragoon]

How are we supposed to classify something like Star Ocean then? It's got To Hit stats, defensive stats, auto-evasion, as well as manual evasion. Action-RPG, in real-time, but with pause. Exploration, Dialogue Choice/Alternate Character Recruitment, but it's got a fixed narrative. We're dealing with the Platypus of RPGs here people!

 

JRPGs are a strange beast in general. Sometimes it feels like the only connection they have to WRPGs is an obsession with numbers.

[Qun00]

The guy didn't even stay to discuss the subject after posting a ridiculously long text.

I think that's a pretty big red flag.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I was talking about gameplay so I won't comment on this nonsense.

 

That makes no sense. You claimed a To Hit stat is the defining gameplay feature of an RPG. I pointed out that many genres, from RTS to MMORPGs to roguelikes, have hit chances built in them. That's as much of a discussion about gameplay nitty-gritty as you're going to get. But you're ignoring it, why, because it doesn't fit your ''I dislike DA:I, therefore it's not an RPG'' narrative?

 

I'm going to say like phantomrachie. You didn't have a counterpoint so you dismissed mine. Well good day to you I suppose, nice to know you want an echo chamber and not a discussion.

 

@NextGenCowboy: Then Star Ocean commits the blackest of all sins: it's a Action-Tactical RPG! The blood of the True RPG master race has been diluted to the point of non-existence in order to placate the brainless masses. Surely the House of RPG has fallen to disgrace is such an heresy is transpiring unopposed!

[katokires]

So basically, everything a RPG is boils down to a To Hit stat for you?

 

You do realize this means that Fire Emblem, XCOM, Total War, Diablo 2, Deus Ex, FTL Faster than Light, Company of Heroes and even bloody World of Warcraft are ''pure-blooded'' RPGs while The Witcher, New Vegas and Skyrim aren't, do you? Which is a stupid way to classify those games. RPGs are about role-playing within a world. Plenty of genres have chance to hit. No other genres than RPG propose that the player takes on the role of a character and shape the world via their decisions and intereactions.

 

EDIT: @TevinterSuprematist: Then you'd have the problem of people saying your character can only pay lip service to those ideals and cannot live up to them in-game.

 

Besides, every single RPG in the history of ever has severe restrictions on how they can act. Even on tabletop, it's just not true you can do or say whatever you want. Even New Vegas, probably the most open-ended RPG in existence, doesn't allow you to ultimately side with most factions in the game or proclaim your love of slavery (albeit you can tacitely endorse it). I wanted a character who could join the Fiends or Great Khans and lead them to victory and I simply couldn't.

 

I can understand that Inquisition doesn't give you the choices you want and you dislike that. That's a fair point. But I don,t think it makes it Not An RPG. The game favors political decisions over black and white moral ones, so yes it does mean you cannot be a card-carrying slaver, but you can very much play as a Game of Thrones-esque power player which most RPGs don't allow you to. Get some, lose some.

It was always pretty obvious for me that Witcher and Skyrim are not RPGs. They are action games pretty clearly. Action games with good storytelling that somehow became accepted as RPGs. Skyrim and Doom are the same. You see these things in RPG, this is what RPG is for you, I see this things in everything. Elhanan could explain it to you how killing the demons in Doom is shaping the world and how important it is to the story if you clear a level before going to next or not, how you could allow demons to be left and repopulate mars...
Now a bit more seriously even beat em up from the 80s offer different paths with different endings thus representing choice and consequence. If you do all the "side-quests" from Sonic to get the emeralds you have different boss and/or endings thus shaping the world. If you have a score over a certain amount in the King of Fighters you face different enemies with a different story. In Tetris you have story and consequences.
So unless your definition as I stated a thousand times points out how many decision make an RPG or how are the exact nature of these decision, or better, which kind of decisions make a game RPG and which kind does not, RPG defines nothing. I stop answering people because they all avoid that, they leave it to subjetivity so that they can keep coming with ****** about what is RPG but never putting a defined point so that I can confront them with.
So either define exactly what makes a game RPG, as I did thousand times and do again if you want to, or just accept that you are avoid coawrds afraid of defining it because you know I will show it is not exclusive. Either it is not exclusive or it does exclude a lot of games you have been calling RPG.
You should admit all you call RPG is the retarded storytelling you like.
Lilithor is partially right, (s)he just misses the point that yes DIablo is infinitely more RPG than Skyrim or Inquisition since you have to hit stat. Any game not controlled by actions and player skill and controlled by a character sheet is more RPG than anything that doesn't. RPG is just a character sheet full of stats, feats and skills, this boring world stuff makes no sense at all! In pen and paper world is a the gm defines, there is no ****** about it, you create your character sheet and that is RPG, the rest is a group of retarded people using stories as an excuse to play a great character sheet. To pretend it is not about that people usually say random things pretending they make sense like as if it was a story in a fantasy world, great they can pretend all you want. RPG is rolling the d20, hitting, being happy with your damage annd going to forums to see better combinations of classes/prestige classes to make your build better. And again, pretending you care about bullshit gm says about this story thing.
So you were all convinced by GMs or videogames that RPG has story in it, so sad. Everyone that played PnP know how much time is spent on character backstories and how much time is spent choosing stats, feats and magical items. RPG is just that. story is something in the way that you can easily get rid of pretending to the gm you care about it while waiting for your next turn.

Modifié par BioWareMod03, 13 mars 2015 - 05:36 .

[NextGenCowboy]

JRPGs are a strange beast in general. Sometimes it feels like the only connection they have to WRPGs is an obsession with numbers.

Depends on the game. Personally I started with things like Dragon Warrior, and Wizardry.

 

According to the above definitions, Wizardry doesn't fit into the RPG mold, but it's the major influence on both WRPGs, and Eastern RPGs, and its influence is felt everywhere, from roguelikes, all the way to From Software's output (via things like King's Field). Pen and Paper rules, modified, but almost no story, not dialogue choices, no character interaction, pure dungeon crawling. This expands into the Japanese dungeon crawlers, like the Shining series, and (Shin) Megami Tensei, and then the other branches into WRPGs.

 

There are connections to be made. The term's too broad, for me anyway, to say "This is an RPG, and this isn't, because of X/Y/Z".

[ThreeF]

JRPGs are a strange beast in general. Sometimes it feels like the only connection they have to WRPGs is an obsession with numbers.

Hmm, some give you pretty interesting stories and choices. Ogre Battle series being one of my favorite in this regard.

[phantomrachie]

 RPG is rolling the d20, hitting, being happy with your damage annd going to forums to see better combinations of classes/prestige classes to make your build better. And again, pretending you care about bullshit gm says about this story thing.
So you were all convinced by GMs or videogames that RPG has story in it, so sad. Everyone that played PnP know how much time is spent on character backstories and how much time is spent choosing stats, feats and magical items. RPG is just that. story is something in the way that you can easily get rid of pretending to the gm you care about it while waiting for your next turn.

 

What about Pen and Paper RPGs that don't use d20 or ones that don't have classes or ones that don't have stats?

 

• Fiasco - normal 6 sided dice
• Shadowrun - no classes
• Fate - no stats, just skills

 

People play RPGs for different reasons, some like to build characters, some like to experience the world, some like the loot and some like the story.

 

The beauty of an RPG is that it brings people who enjoy all these things together and, if the system is good enough they can enjoy the game together.

 

Why try to block out so many people who enjoy RPGs because the element you like is the character building and combat?

 

That is not all an RPG is, it never has been.

[Cyonan]

It was always pretty obvious for me that Witcher and Skyrim are not RPGs. They are action games pretty clearly. Action games with good storytelling that somehow became accepted as RPGs. Skyrim and Doom are the same. You see these things in RPG, this is what RPG is for you, I see this things in everything. Elhanan could explain it to you how killing the demons in Doom is shaping the world and how important it is to the story if you clear a level before going to next or not, how you could allow demons to be left and repopulate mars...
 

 

Skyrim, now apparently a first person shooter.

 

Also, using your logic X-COM actually is a RPG because there are characters with skills, levels, gear, and you have to roll to hit in a turn based combat system.

 

And Fallout 3/NV only becomes a RPG if you use VATS.

[pdusen]

RPG is rolling the d20, hitting, being happy with your damage annd going to forums to see better combinations of classes/prestige classes to make your build better. And again, pretending you care about bullshit gm says about this story thing.

 

This may come as something of a shock to you, but plenty of people play PnP RPGs to play a character in a story and not for the gameplay bullshit you were just talking about.

[CronoDragoon]

Just so you guys know, when you respond to katokires, you are dealing with someone who has on more than one occasion admitted that he only posts here out of spite, has nothing to do with his spite but inflict it on others, and has nothing better to do every day. His exact words, not mine.

[Cyonan]

This may come as something of a shock to you, but plenty of people play PnP RPGs to play a character in a story and not for the gameplay bullshit you were just talking about.

 

Playing PnP games for their biggest strength in that you don't have to adhere to technological limitations when trying to actually role play your character and have an interesting story?

 

You're obviously crazy.

 

 

Just so you guys know, when you respond to katokires, you are dealing with someone who has on more than one occasion admitted that he only posts here out of spite, has nothing to do with his spite but inflict it on others, and has nothing better to do every day. His exact words, not mine.

 

True, but I'm bored and I don't have anything else to do at the moment.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It was always pretty obvious for me that Witcher and Skyrim are not RPGs. They are action games pretty clearly. Action games with good storytelling that somehow became accepted as RPGs. Skyrim and Doom are the same. You see these things in RPG, this is what RPG is for you, I see this things in everything. Elhanan could explain it to you how killing the demons in Doom is shaping the world and how important it is to the story if you clear a level before going to next or not, how you could allow demons to be left and repopulate mars...
Now a bit more seriously even beat em up from the 80s offer different paths with different endings thus representing choice and consequence. If you do all the "side-quests" from Sonic to get the emeralds you have different boss and/or endings thus shaping the world. If you have a score over a certain amount in the King of Fighters you face different enemies with a different story. In Tetris you have story and consequences.
So unless your definition as I stated a thousand times points out how many decision make an RPG or how are the exact nature of these decision, or better, which kind of decisions make a game RPG and which kind does not, RPG defines nothing. I stop answering people because they all avoid that, they leave it to subjetivity so that they can keep coming with bullshit about what is RPG but never putting a defined point so that I can confront them with.
So either define exactly what makes a game RPG, as I did thousand times and do again if you want to, or just accept that you are avoid coawrds afraid of defining it because you know I will show it is not exclusive. Either it is not exclusive or it does exclude a lot of games you have been calling RPG.
You should admit all you call RPG is the retarded storytelling you like.
Lilithor is partially right, (s)he just misses the point that yes DIablo is infinitely more RPG than Skyrim or Inquisition since you have to hit stat. Any game not controlled by actions and player skill and controlled by a character sheet is more RPG than anything that doesn't. RPG is just a character sheet full of stats, feats and skills, this boring world stuff makes no sense at all! In pen and paper world is a the gm defines, there is no bullshit about it, you create your character sheet and that is RPG, the rest is a group of retarded people using stories as an excuse to play a great character sheet. To pretend it is not about that people usually say random things pretending they make sense like as if it was a story in a fantasy world, great they can pretend all you want. RPG is rolling the d20, hitting, being happy with your damage annd going to forums to see better combinations of classes/prestige classes to make your build better. And again, pretending you care about bullshit gm says about this story thing.
So you were all convinced by GMs or videogames that RPG has story in it, so sad. Everyone that played PnP know how much time is spent on character backstories and how much time is spent choosing stats, feats and magical items. RPG is just that. story is something in the way that you can easily get rid of pretending to the gm you care about it while waiting for your next turn.

 

Not sure why I bother, but eh.

 

First, cut out the personal attacks. There's really no need to call anyone cowards over their preference in video games.

 

Second, as someone with an autistic brother, I ask you to stop using ''retarded'' in such a casual manner. This isn't 4chan.

 

Third, to actually answer my point, does this mean that XCOM, Company of Heroes, World of Warcraft and FTL are automatically RPGs because they have a To Hit mechanic?

 

Fourth, I am not a tabletop expert, but I understand that D&D is far from the only one in existence, that others may easily have drastically different gameplay mechanics, and that people play tabletop for a variety of reasons. Some might prefer gameplay, others story, and others to just be with their friends.

 

Fifth, to use your Sonic example, when could you take control of Sonic and give him motivations, backstory, emotions, etc. via actions or dialog options? Side activities exist in every single genre. RPGs are special in that they link it to the story in a way others don't. Alternate endings are just the tip of the iceberg of what sidequests in RPGs can offer. Sonic's interactions with the setting also limit themselves to jumping on bad people and avoiding obstacles.

 

Your definitions simply don't hold up to reality, and based on your rude and/or hyperbolic comments, I suspect that I am spot on that you are less interested in defining what is an RPG than in saying Inquisition is a bad game because it doesn't fit your own idea of an RPG.