353 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

Most RPGs that I have played (yes, including P&P RPGs) do at least have goals for the player. Even if those goals are an agenda made up by the players themselves. And it is in fulfilling those goals that you "win" an RPG.

I've done plenty of sessions where we've just wandered around bs-ing and looking for trouble. And that's fun. But the really fun experiences are where we ended a session feeling like we've accomplished something.

No, the character has those objectives. The player doesn't. I'm playing 5e D&d right now. My character has the objective to stop Tiamat from escaping the 9 hells. I don't have that objective. My objective is too play my wrestling wizard to the fullest. So while a fireball would be more effective an enlarge spell and then powerbombing a giant is more in character. I fulfilled my objective even if I fail to stop Tiamat and the realms are destroyed.

In Shadowrun my character Boom Town was hired to investigate the universal brotherhood. Winning would have been running the eff away and calling for backup as the investigation was done. Stopping them wasn't part of the deal.Playing boom town was losing you arm while shoving a **** ton of c12 with some of a belt of explosive ammo down a insect queens throat. And then role playing 6 runs with one arm, your off hand arm while saving the cash for a new arm. I was at a massive loss for the character. Arm gone, cash poor no in character benefits at all. All negatives. For me the player it was a massive win. I had fun, I role played my character correctly, and I had a cool story.

[AlanC9]

But any time you do re-load you contradict your own logic. Your character is constrained to your decisions in that way; you screw up or you die, there is no reason to re-load, you effectively fail to separate yourself and your goals with your character when you do that.

I'll guess that the point is that a death by RP choice isn't worth reloading from -- the character would just make the same mistake all over again and die the same way next time. But this isn't necessarily true for a combat death, where a strategy can fail from the RNG, a poorly-timed button press, or something else that isn't really RP-dependent

[LinksOcarina]

I'll guess that the point is that a death by RP choice isn't worth reloading from -- the character would just make the same mistake all over again and die the same way next time. But this isn't necessarily true for a combat death, where a strategy can fail from the RNG, a poorly-timed button press, or something else that isn't really RP-dependent

 

Realistically yeah, if you take yourself out of the moment and treat combat separate from the role-playing all the time. But doing so means you are not role-playing in a role-playing game, you are playing a game.

 

You don't get do-overs when you are killed either, so the logic that Sylvius presents seems flawed in this way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But any time you do re-load you contradict your own logic. Your character is constrained to your decisions in that way; you screw up or you die, there is no reason to re-load, you effectively fail to separate yourself and your goals with your character when you do that.

But a slightly different character who would make a different decision is a different character. Rather than replay from the beginning, I cannjust replay from the point of divergence.

This isn't a regular occurence. The last time I can recall doing it was when a Warden of mine had to choose which quest to do next. It was a close call, and I chose to to send him to Honnleath rather than Orzammar. The consequence of this, 25 hours of gameplay later, was that my character died. There was no way to avoid that death given the decision to go to Honnleath.

But it wasn't important to that character's design to go to Honnleath then, and I'd kept track of which decisions mattered and which didn't, so I went back to a save before that decision (undoing 25 hours of gameplay) and went to Orzammar instead.

That Warden remains the only one of my Wardens to defeat the Archdemon.

Not to mention that death as a result of a role-playing decision is vague at best. Failing to use the right move or combination of moves in a combat situation, for example, or challenging people to a fight you can't win, are one in the same in this regard, so even then there would be no reason to re-do it.

It would be if I failed to use those moves because I couldn't press the buttons with sufficient dexterity. I suck at shooters, for example, so I'd happily reload in ME3 because I didn't manage to point the camera in the right direction to enable the context-sensitive controls to do the thing I wanted to do.

RNG events are also things I'll reload. It's one of the reasons I like RNG events - they let me reload without breaking my character. I'm a big save scummer in turn-based strategy games.

Your character, for whatever role-play logic you decide, is done. Your personal stake to it should not matter in that case.

Think of it like bubble universe theory.

I'll happily live with a result that arises from decisions my character made.

But if I break character (if I'm distracted from the game by a phone or child), then those actions don't count. If I'm trying to figure out how I just dropped some food on my lap, and as a result my character walks into an ambush, that doesn't count.

It is here where it seems like you do metagame the game, for a ulterior goal outside of what the game is about. This feels like a major contradiction.

No, it's because I can separate the two, and because I can perceive in the in-game timeline in a non-linear way (when my character cannot) that it isn't.

It's the in-game decisions I don't metagame. Metagame decisions are obviously metagamed. If I reload and play the same character, I have to make the same decisions.

[LinksOcarina]

But a slightly different character who would make a different decision is a different character. Rather than replay from the beginning, I can just replay from the point of divergence.

This isn't a regular occurence. The last time I can recall doing it was when a Warden of mine had to choose which quest to do next. It was a close call, and I chose to to send him to Honnleath rather than Orzammar. The consequence of this, 25 hours of gameplay later, was that my character died. There was no way to avoid that death given the decision to go to Honnleath.

But it wasn't important to that character's design to go to Honnleath then, and I'd kept track of which decisions mattered and which didn't, so I went back to a save before that decision (undoing 25 hours of gameplay) and went to Orzammar instead.

That Warden remains the only one of my Wardens to defeat the Archdemon.
It would be if I failed to use those moves because I couldn't press the buttons with sufficient dexterity. I suck at shooters, for example, so I'd happily reload in ME3 because I didn't manage to point the camera in the right direction to enable the context-sensitive controls to do the thing I wanted to do.

RNG events are also things I'll reload. It's one of the reasons I like RNG events - they let me reload without breaking my character. I'm a big save scummer in turn-based strategy games.
Think of it like bubble universe theory.

I'll happily live with a result that arises from decisions my character made.

But if I break character (if I'm distracted from the game by a phone or child), then those actions don't count. If I'm trying to figure out how I just dropped some food on my lap, and as a result my character walks into an ambush, that doesn't count.

 

No, it's because I can separate the two, and because I can perceive in the in-game timeline in a non-linear way (when my character cannot) that it isn't.

It's the in-game decisions I don't metagame. Metagame decisions are obviously metagamed. If I reload and play the same character, I have to make the same decisions.

 

Whether or not you can separate the two is not important at all. How you perceive in-game timelines is more or less irrelevant to the actions you portray on-screen, and by your own methods adding, or removing, baggage by the perception of the player is not important to the character and their mindset.  

 

Not to mention your point of divergence is also subjective; choosing to approach a combat situation from a different perspective is still playing the game instead of role-playing an encounter. You are actively trying to win in a combat situation, and reloading a character to change your strategy is actively participating in the game, engaging in the goal of winning that said encounter. (skill at the game itself is not really relevant to this at all.)

 

So even your 25 hour loss of gameplay in that case contradicts the logic presented; you are reloading based upon the theory that the game will be different, which it will be because you, as the player, will actively attempt to make it different for your character. It is not a different character, if it was then it completely scrubs what you did before.

 

It is simply justified it with your logic of being slightly different or changed to salvage some of the progression. It's basic psychology, it seems like you are spoiled of the results of what will happen, and consciously or sub-consciously, attempt to avoid the same mistakes if its perceived as a mistake, or in this case, a death of a character and a reboot to a "new one" so they don't make that mistake, if at all possible. 

 

This is why such separation is irrelevant, it doesn't matter because no matter how you slice it, you are still attempting to "win" at the game through such situations, be it losing the game through death or non-ideal conditions (however you perceive it) or by restarting at certain points to deviate your path in the game for your character

 

Hence you chess/chessboard analogy makes no sense to me, you are arguing the game as a chessboard, while playing it like a game of chess in a nutshell. 

 

As to your bubble theory, fair enough at least on that. 

 

I do apologize if this is becoming a circular argument, but I do hope you actually see where I have a problem with the statement you made. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Whether or not you can separate the two is not important at all. How you perceive in-game timelines is more or less irrelevant to the actions you portray on-screen, and by your own methods adding, or removing, baggage by the perception of the player is not important to the character and their mindset.  

 

Not to mention your point of divergence is also subjective; choosing to approach a combat situation from a different perspective is still playing the game instead of role-playing an encounter. You are actively trying to win in a combat situation, and reloading a character to change your strategy is actively participating in the game, engaging in the goal of winning that said encounter. (skill at the game itself is not really relevant to this at all.)

Of course it is.  As I said explicitly, if I'm reloading to play with the same character (say, because I lost a combat encounter), I have to make the same decisions as before.  I'll employ the same strategy.  I just won't mishit keys or fight with the controls.

 

I don't exist within the game.  My characteristics should have no direct impact on the in-game events at all.

 

This is why I object to action combat in all RPGs all of the time.  Action combat is not okay.

So even your 25 hour loss of gameplay in that case contradicts the logic presented; you are reloading based upon the theory that the game will be different, which it will be because you, as the player, will actively attempt to make it different for your character. It is not a different character, if it was then it completely scrubs what you did before.

Apparently I need to explain this in greater detail.

 

Okay, so when I create a character, I design his personality before I start that playthrough.  Then, as events occur, I make choices based on that personality.  the personality is usually built starting from a single core principle, and then drawing logical conclusions based on that.  More principles are added as necessary to flesh out the character until I think he's ready.  Then I start the playthough, and I never edit that character's personality after that (though it might evolve during play - I have little control over this process).

 

If I find an in-game event I find really interesting, and I want to investigate options different from the one my character will play, I'll create a new character for that.  In that case, my initial principle is that the character will make a specific choice under specific circumstances, and then I design the personality to be consistent with that choice.  Then, as I play, I'll see what other choices that character makes (this is the best part about roleplaying, in my opinion - finding out what my character does).

 

In the case I cited, my character picked up Shale, then went to Orzammar, completed the Deep Roads, sided with Branka, and then got killed when Shale switched sides.  If I were willing to simply reload to get a different result, I could instead side with Caridin, in which case I could win the fight because Shale wouldn't revolt.  Or, if I didn't want to do that, I could leave Shale behind and not bring her to that encounter.  But that would break my character.

 

So that character was done.  But I liked him in many respects, so I devised a very similar character who hopefully wouldn't meet the same end.  Then I painstakingly went through the choices that previous character had made to that point (starting at the beginning) to see where the new design would deviate (and whether it would be soon enough to avoid disaster).  When I found one I thought would work (I basically turned down his sense of wonder), I created him.  But there was no reason to replay all the parts where the decisions would have been identical, so I reduced those to a previously solved problem and reloaded from the point of divergence.

 

If I'd needed to start over in order to maintain the coherence of the new character, I would have (I usually do).  I mentioned this case only because I've talked about it here before, and I didn't want people calling me out for saying I never reload (which, for the purposes that were actually being discussed here, I don't).

It is simply justified it with your logic of being slightly different or changed to salvage some of the progression. It's basic psychology, it seems like you are spoiled of the results of what will happen, and consciously or sub-consciously, attempt to avoid the same mistakes if its perceived as a mistake, or in this case, a death of a character and a reboot to a "new one" so they don't make that mistake, if at all possible. 

 

This is why such separation is irrelevant, it doesn't matter because no matter how you slice it, you are still attempting to "win" at the game through such situations, be it losing the game through death or non-ideal conditions (however you perceive it) or by restarting at certain points to deviate your path in the game for your character

What matters here is the process of roleplaying, where in-game decisions are made from the character's point of view and only the character's point of view.

Hence you chess/chessboard analogy makes no sense to me, you are arguing the game as a chessboard, while playing it like a game of chess in a nutshell.]

Except I ignore the rules and set my own objectives.  So nothing like chess.

As to your bubble theory, fair enough at least on that.

Bubble theory is amazing.  It explains so many things, including one of my favourites - Schrödinger's Lore.

[LinksOcarina]

Of course it is.  As I said explicitly, if I'm reloading to play with the same character (say, because I lost a combat encounter), I have to make the same decisions as before.  I'll employ the same strategy.  I just won't mishit keys or fight with the controls.

 

I don't exist within the game.  My characteristics should have no direct impact on the in-game events at all.

 

This is why I object to action combat in all RPGs all of the time.  Action combat is not okay.

 

 

Apparently I need to explain this in greater detail.

 

Okay, so when I create a character, I design his personality before I start that playthrough.  Then, as events occur, I make choices based on that personality.  the personality is usually built starting from a single core principle, and then drawing logical conclusions based on that.  More principles are added as necessary to flesh out the character until I think he's ready.  Then I start the playthough, and I never edit that character's personality after that (though it might evolve during play - I have little control over this process).

 

If I find an in-game event I find really interesting, and I want to investigate options different from the one my character will play, I'll create a new character for that.  In that case, my initial principle is that the character will make a specific choice under specific circumstances, and then I design the personality to be consistent with that choice.  Then, as I play, I'll see what other choices that character makes (this is the best part about roleplaying, in my opinion - finding out what my character does).

 

In the case I cited, my character picked up Shale, then went to Orzammar, completed the Deep Roads, sided with Branka, and then got killed when Shale switched sides.  If I were willing to simply reload to get a different result, I could instead side with Caridin, in which case I could win the fight because Shale wouldn't revolt.  Or, if I didn't want to do that, I could leave Shale behind and not bring her to that encounter.  But that would break my character.

 

So that character was done.  But I liked him in many respects, so I devised a very similar character who hopefully wouldn't meet the same end.  Then I painstakingly went through the choices that previous character had made to that point (starting at the beginning) to see where the new design would deviate (and whether it would be soon enough to avoid disaster).  When I found one I thought would work (I basically turned down his sense of wonder), I created him.  But there was no reason to replay all the parts where the decisions would have been identical, so I reduced those to a previously solved problem and reloaded from the point of divergence.

 

If I'd needed to start over in order to maintain the coherence of the new character, I would have (I usually do).  I mentioned this case only because I've talked about it here before, and I didn't want people calling me out for saying I never reload (which, for the purposes that were actually being discussed here, I don't).

 

 

What matters here is the process of roleplaying, where in-game decisions are made from the character's point of view and only the character's point of view.

 

 

Except I ignore the rules and set my own objectives.  So nothing like chess.

 

 

Bubble theory is amazing.  It explains so many things, including one of my favourites - Schrödinger's Lore.

 

If you are blaming winning or losing a combat encounter on a misclick, then you are not doing anything right in that respect. What you are basically saying is it boils down to luck, maybe a critical hit here or there, that changes an outcome or something of that nature, if you do the exact same encounter the exact same way. 

 

If thats the case, then why re-load at all? You got unlucky, not blaming of a misclick is going to change that. If you actually mimic every single encounter in a combat situation the same way, but come with different or same results because of things outside of your control...well, i'm reminded of a Sun Tzu quote, " Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you've forgotten your aim." 

 

I don't think you forgot your aim, but it's highly illogical to do the same thing and expect different results. If its in the realm of your character doing this, then it just seems like really poor role-playing in that regard to keep trying the same thing over and over and hoping it works, or getting lucky, or getting a different outcome because of randomness. It cheapens the game, and the character, at the same time. 

 

And contrary to what you believe, your characteristics do impact the game, just not consciously though. Even your detailed explanation (I figured it was shale that killed you) you more or less justify a change by changing your mindset of your character; (the character is more or less the same regardless of how you justify it). That is not the same a "re-roll" when you come to the table, you are basically reloading an earlier save to justify a personal, psychological refitting of the same character, ergo the belief that the character is different when they aren't.

 

Truth be told, the process of in-game role-playing is completely irrelevant to the point; you can say that the character decisions are all their own, but like I said before, that is not fully the case sub-consciously at least, despite always attempting to separate the two. Much like play acting, you are still adding a part of yourself and past experiences to your character as you go.

 

More to the point, the fact that you admit that you ignore the rules set forth to you in favor of personal objectives just demonstrates to me the point even further; just because the game can let you break the rules like that for in-character reasons, doesn't the change the fact that it is a game first because it has rules set up that the game goes by.

 

See, I do agree that you can form your own objectives in-game. Thats all fine. But the problem is you are doing so in the framework of the game itself, much like a tabletop game or a video game, doesn't matter which. 

 

For example, when I GM games, it doesn't change the fact that there are rules and objectives players set for themselves or follow because I either set them up, or they set them up for themselves. They are still following the rules, to an extant, and either formulating objectives, or going along with objectives given to them for a goal and a sense of purpose. In other words, they set their own goals, their own ambitions, ideals, what have you, but they play by the rules of the game that is set up for them, so they are confined to the game experience while simultaneously attempting to reach their own goals, either as a group objective, of personally. Their winning conditions are both similar and different, but they are still winning conditions, goals to reach at the end of the game. 

 

True role-playing is not just in-character-playing, it is merely a part of the whole package, right down to rules, mechanics, gameplay styles and, of course, achieving something out of it. Belief that one aspect is superior or the only part of an RPG that is important is way too narrow in scope, and then leads to contradictions of actions while participating in them. 

 

Truth be told, you are simply focusing on the wrong issue, because it is an issue that more or less contradicts the design itself. All of those aspects outside of in-character decisions that you don't value as much make RPGs a game, not a toy, regardless of your belief. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you are blaming winning or losing a combat encounter on a misclick, then you are not doing anything right in that respect. What you are basically saying is it boils down to luck, maybe a critical hit here or there, that changes an outcome or something of that nature, if you do the exact same encounter the exact same way.

I said I make the same decisions. I didn't say I did the same things.

When I say misclick, I mean that I triggered the wrong ability or was unable to make the character vault over an obstacle that I know he can vault over.

It wasn't uncommon when I played ME3 to see me spend well over a second trying to enter or leave cover. That's not Shepard's fault. That's my fault. But my failings shouldn't disadvantage Shepard.

I'm not saying that I reload to get a critical (which mostly wouldn't work in modern games). If I know I'm employing an ability that might get resisted, I accept that risk. But I don't accept that my character might suddenly lose his mind and walk into a corner while he's getting shot in the back.

I refuse to let events outside the game world agfect events inside the gameworld.

If thats the case, then why re-load at all? You got unlucky, not blaming of a misclick is going to change that. If you actually mimic every single encounter in a combat situation the same way, but come with different or same results because of things outside of your control...well, i'm reminded of a Sun Tzu quote, " Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you've forgotten your aim."

The character doesn't forget his aim, though. That's the point.

And contrary to what you believe, your characteristics do impact the game, just not consciously though.

I don't think you appreciate how thoroughly I roleplay.

I carefully compare my decisions to my character's design to ensure that they fit. I roleplay combat. I roleplay exploration. I roleplay equipment, and inventory management, and level-ups.

I can typically ezplain exactly why my character is choosing one thing versus an alternative, and I won't make the choice until I'm convinced I could defend it. Because the reasoning always needs to precede the conclusion. Otherwise I'd just be rationalizing, and rationalization is a nearly unforgivable failing.

Even your detailed explanation (I figured it was shale that killed you) you more or less justify a change by changing your mindset of your character; (the character is more or less the same regardless of how you justify it).

Equivalence is binary.

That is not the same a "re-roll" when you come to the table...

Yes it is. I do all the same groundwork.

Sometimes I'll create new characters that match the start of a playthrough that isn't finished yet. Then I'll reload an old save there and continue from that point (skipping the tedium of replaying something that won't teach me anything new), and thus I'll simultaneously have two different characters that spawned from one in-game character creation event (though the real character creation, the crafting of the personalities, happened separately).

...you are basically reloading an earlier save to justify a personal, psychological refitting of the same character, ergo the belief that the character is different when they aren't.

If they're not identical then they're different. That's what difference is.

Truth be told, the process of in-game role-playing is completely irrelevant to the point; you can say that the character decisions are all their own, but like I said before, that is not fully the case sub-consciously at least, despite always attempting to separate the two. Much like play acting, you are still adding a part of yourself and past experiences to your character as you go.

I don't even exist when I'm playing. Or, at least, I'm not typically aware that I exist. I adopt the perspective of the character so as to help me avoid metagaming.

This process was once described by someone here as "the wilful induction of psychosis." That seems an apt description.

More to the point, the fact that you admit that you ignore the rules set forth to you in favor of personal objectives just demonstrates to me the point even further; just because the game can let you break the rules like that for in-character reasons, doesn't the change the fact that it is a game first because it has rules set up that the game goes by.

I'm not breaking the rules. The rules aren't there. I'm simply creating my own, rather than choosing the rules created by the designers (which only wxist within my playthrough if I decide they do).

This isn't meaningfully different from installing mods.

See, I do agree that you can form your own objectives in-game. Thats all fine. But the problem is you are doing so in the framework of the game itself, much like a tabletop game or a video game, doesn't matter which.

For example, when I GM games, it doesn't change the fact that there are rules and objectives players set for themselves or follow because I either set them up, or they set them up for themselves. They are still following the rules, to an extant, and either formulating objectives, or going along with objectives given to them for a goal and a sense of purpose. In other words, they set their own goals, their own ambitions, ideals, what have you, but they play by the rules of the game that is set up for them, so they are confined to the game experience while simultaneously attempting to reach their own goals, either as a group objective, of personally. Their winning conditions are both similar and different, but they are still winning conditions, goals to reach at the end of the game.

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Tabletop games are multiplayer games.

Imagine they weren't. Imagine a tabletop game where you were the GM and all of the players. Does your conception still necessarily apply?

I think it needs to for your description to be as universally applicable as you think it is. But I also don't think it still applies.

A roleplaying game isn't a specific adventure or campaign. A roleplaying game is the sourcebooks.

I treat BioWare games not as I would a tabletop gaming session, but as I would a tabletop ruleset.

[LinksOcarina]

I said I make the same decisions. I didn't say I did the same things.

When I say misclick, I mean that I triggered the wrong ability or was unable to make the character vault over an obstacle that I know he can vault over.

It wasn't uncommon when I played ME3 to see me spend well over a second trying to enter or leave cover. That's not Shepard's fault. That's my fault. But my failings shouldn't disadvantage Shepard.

I'm not saying that I reload to get a critical (which mostly wouldn't work in modern games). If I know I'm employing an ability that might get resisted, I accept that risk. But I don't accept that my character might suddenly lose his mind and walk into a corner while he's getting shot in the back.

I refuse to let events outside the game world agfect events inside the gameworld.
The character doesn't forget his aim, though. That's the point.
 

 

You write so much I need to break it up now.

 

The problem is still the re-loading in that case. You are again justifying events and using semantics to argue it. Even in a game like Dragon Age that is unavoidable; hell, most games that is unavoidable because of aspects beyond the players control.  The reason behind it, if it's you, then it's you sure, but it's not always the case of course. 

 

Events outside of the game world still affect you, they affect the game world as well. Real-time clocks, luck and positioning, even your own mental focus, is all a part of that. Most of which cannot be controlled; if you forget to do something because you are tired that day, then you forget. You can argue your character can't forget, but it already happened. Your failings are simply something that is part of the playing of the character because everyone does it.

 

I don't think you appreciate how thoroughly I roleplay.

I carefully compare my decisions to my character's design to ensure that they fit. I roleplay combat. I roleplay exploration. I roleplay equipment, and inventory management, and level-ups.

I can typically ezplain exactly why my character is choosing one thing versus an alternative, and I won't make the choice until I'm convinced I could defend it. Because the reasoning always needs to precede the conclusion. Otherwise I'd just be rationalizing, and rationalization is a nearly unforgivable failing.

Equivalence is binary.
 

 

I don't really care how you roleplay because it is irrelevant to the main point.

 

How you role-play is personal to you only, not to other people. To argue that aspects of the game in turn make it not a game is the issue i'm taking umbrage with. Role-playing equipment, inventories, level-ups and the like through that lens is nice and all, but it is still rationalizing vs reasoning, as you are verifying facts that only are justified by your character, when you as a player have information that changes that of course.

 

Remember, you can't separate yourself from your character, it is impossible to do so every time. Of course we all do it when we play, but if we know what events will happen, and how we deal with those events, then we as outsiders of the game will rationalize conditions to justify our choices to those events. When shale killed you, you believed that the only divergence you can make is to not recruit her I presume, and go through the Dwarf chapter first. 

 

You have knowledge that says to do this because this one character will kill you. Even if you rationalize a new persona for a character (which I argue you don't) you still use previous knowledge to make that decision, and justify if it with the new character.

 

It is not a question of separation, as I said we all try and do it. The fact of the matter is full separation is impossible psychologically; as I keep saying consciously or sub-consciously we are involved in that process. How you role-play is nothing more than the justification of the said process, it is not using reason, at least not completely.

 

Yes it is. I do all the same groundwork.

Sometimes I'll create new characters that match the start of a playthrough that isn't finished yet. Then I'll reload an old save there and continue from that point (skipping the tedium of replaying something that won't teach me anything new), and thus I'll simultaneously have two different characters that spawned from one in-game character creation event (though the real character creation, the crafting of the personalities, happened separately).

If they're not identical then they're different. That's what difference is.

I don't even exist when I'm playing. Or, at least, I'm not typically aware that I exist. I adopt the perspective of the character so as to help me avoid metagaming.

This process was once described by someone here as "the wilful induction of psychosis." That seems an apt description.
 

 

You are rationalizing differences to create different characters it sounds like.

 

Personality crafting presumes they are different in all other respects, not to mention you can change personalities based upon events on a whim as well can alter that persona. To use the same character and change their personality to suit the needs of a new character or new objective is still not a fully new character. Adopting the characters perspective does not necessarily avoid metagaming, in fact it can encourage it just as much, especially if you will be using previous knowledge to play the game.

 

 The issue here is that you do so when you re-load a previous save is a metagame. It's like taking a character and bringing out his twin brother, who is completely different from the first; it's the rationale that the character is different because his mind is different, when the character is the exact same thing as before, just nicer, darker, or logical or what have you. You don't role-play their inventory, equipment, level ups in that case, and if they were going to be the same anyway, it's a cop-out because that character is not unique, even through their personality change.

 

That is poor role-playing creation if you ask me. It is saving time sure, but using mental gymnastics to say "well his personality is different so it's ok." It just doesn't fly with your previous arguments, it feels like another justification for a decision made the player, masked as a role-playing decision.

 

I would also get that psychosis checked  .

 

 

I'm not breaking the rules. The rules aren't there. I'm simply creating my own, rather than choosing the rules created by the designers (which only wxist within my playthrough if I decide they do).

This isn't meaningfully different from installing mods.

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Tabletop games are multiplayer games.

Imagine they weren't. Imagine a tabletop game where you were the GM and all of the players. Does your conception still necessarily apply?

I think it needs to for your description to be as universally applicable as you think it is. But I also don't think it still applies.

A roleplaying game isn't a specific adventure or campaign. A roleplaying game is the sourcebooks.

I treat BioWare games not as I would a tabletop gaming session, but as I would a tabletop ruleset.

 

The rules exists whether you follow them or not. You can't equip certains armors or weapons or go certain places in the world for a reason. You can't fully control your actions every single moment in-game, (outside of reasoning them for in-character moments) and even with how you role-play, you are adapting to the games rules to do so.

 

I agree tabletops are multi-player games, but that is not important at all. What you imagine of course sounds silly, then you would be writing a book or sourcebook for people to use, but the bigger deal is that the materials involved are followed by the players involved. My description is apt for a reason; it is how players see the games. An RPG is a sourcebook physically, but it is still a game at its core.

 

Tabletop rulesets are not toys, they are games like that. You modding them is changing the rules, but in the process you create rules that make sense for your version of the game that way. That doesn't change the fact that the game itself will still follow the rules set forth by the GM or the developers, and your own personals included, into that ruleset.

 

Changing the rules of chess doesn't stop the game from being a variant of chess; much like changing or ignoring the rules of an RPG doesn't remove that fact that you are playing a game with rules to it. A variant is a variant, regardless of how it's played.

 

ETA: Re-wrote some of this because I forgot to explain myself fully. This has been fun though, so I hope you enjoy the discussion, makes me think. I like that.

[AlanC9]

Hmm... maybe I've lost the thread here, but are rules really relevant to the game/toy distinction in the first place? A physical toy may not have rules, but it has its own set of constraints because of its structure.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hmm... maybe I've lost the thread here, but are rules really relevant to the game/toy distinction in the first place? A physical toy may not have rules, but it has its own set of constraints because of its structure.

But the constraints are only what you can do, not what you're supposed to do.

If you play chess, but decide that knights can't capture bishops, then you're not playing chess. You're playing a different game that is very similar to chess.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Changing the rules of chess doesn't stop the game from being a variant of chess

But it stops it from being chess, which is my point.

You can only play chess by following the rules of chess. But you can play other games on a chessboard.

[Iakus]

Hmm... maybe I've lost the thread here, but are rules really relevant to the game/toy distinction in the first place? A physical toy may not have rules, but it has its own set of constraints because of its structure.

I lost the thread when I was told a game is a toy and not a game.

[LinksOcarina]

But it stops it from being chess, which is my point.

You can only play chess by following the rules of chess. But you can play other games on a chessboard.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

It would if you play Checkers on a Chessboard, otherwise, you are playing a variant of Chess on a Chessboard, the rules simply change if agreed upon by the players. 

 

You can deviate from the game and their inherent rules, but in the end, you are still playing a game. 

 

I lost the thread when I was told a game is a toy and not a game.

 

If it makes you feel better, this is perhaps most intellectually stimulating conversation I have had in a long time on this forum.

 

Most people on here have no clue what they are talking about. Sylvius is presenting an actual challenge because of how he views things; it's quite fun. Plus better than speculating on things like when we leave for Andromeda in the next game. 

[AlanC9]

At what point does a variant of chess stop being chess?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Events outside of the game world still affect you, they affect the game world as well. Real-time clocks, luck and positioning, even your own mental focus, is all a part of that. Most of which cannot be controlled; if you forget to do something because you are tired that day, then you forget. You can argue your character can't forget, but it already happened. Your failings are simply something that is part of the playing of the character because everyone does it.

But they corrupt the simulation. An uncorrupted simulation is an ideal to which to aspire.

There's no possible in-game justification for those events that doesn't involve rationalization, and rationalization is never okay.

If I can't map out the formal logic behind the decision in advance, I'm not satisfied with the decision.

I don't really care how you roleplay because it is irrelevant to the main point.

Only because you're ascribing behaviour to me.

How you role-play is personal to you only, not to other people. To argue that aspects of the game in turn make it not a game is the issue i'm taking umbrage with. Role-playing equipment, inventories, level-ups and the like through that lens is nice and all, but it is still rationalizing vs reasoning, as you are verifying facts that only are justified by your character, when you as a player have information that changes that of course.

Information to which I don't appeal.

Remember, you can't separate yourself from your character, it is impossible to do so every time. Of course we all do it when we play, but if we know what events will happen, and how we deal with those events, then we as outsiders of the game will rationalize conditions to justify our choices to those events. When shale killed you, you believed that the only divergence you can make is to not recruit her I presume, and go through the Dwarf chapter first.

I determined that by running several theoretical permutations.

I don't hold beliefs.

It is not a question of separation, as I said we all try and do it. The fact of the matter is full separation is impossible psychologically; as I keep saying consciously or sub-consciously we are involved in that process. How you role-play is nothing more than the justification of the said process, it is not using reason, at least not completely.

I'm involved during character creation. I map out motives and objectives, and then I appeal to those for every decision.

If ever a decision doesn't match to a prevuously determined aspect of the character, then the character has no preference. I document those events so I can be sure I know which was chosen in case I need to back up later.

Choices that are driven by the character's design don't need to be documented, because the design is documented.

Incidentally, I'm about to replay DAI from an earlier save. I'm backing up to the very first save so I can keep the same face. Is that still the same character?

By your reasoning, it is. I don't see how you could possibly justify that, however.

You are rationalizing differences to create different characters it sounds like.

Personality crafting presumes they are different in all other respects, not to mention you can change personalities based upon events on a whim as well can alter that persona. To use the same character and change their personality to suit the needs of a new character or new objective is still not a fully new character. Adopting the characters perspective does not necessarily avoid metagaming, in fact it can encourage it just as much, especially if you will be using previous knowledge to play the game.

The issue here is that you do so when you re-load a previous save is a metagame. It's like taking a character and bringing out his twin brother, who is completely different from the first; it's the rationale that the character is different because his mind is different, when the character is the exact same thing as before, just nicer, darker, or logical or what have you. You don't role-play their inventory, equipment, level ups in that case, and if they were going to be the same anyway, it's a cop-out because that character is not unique, even through their personality change.

That is poor role-playing creation if you ask me. It is saving time sure, but using mental gymnastics to say "well his personality is different so it's ok." It just doesn't fly with your previous arguments, it feels like another justification for a decision made the player, masked as a role-playing decision.

I would also get that psychosis checked .

The rules exists whether you follow them or not. You can't equip certains armors or weapons or go certain places in the world for a reason. You can't fully control your actions every single moment in-game, (outside of reasoning them for in-character moments) and even with how you role-play, you are adapting to the games rules to do so.

I agree tabletops are multi-player games, but that is not important at all. What you imagine of course sounds silly, then you would be writing a book or sourcebook for people to use, but the bigger deal is that the materials involved are followed by the players involved. My description is apt for a reason; it is how players see the games. An RPG is a sourcebook physically, but it is still a game at its core.

Tabletop rulesets are not toys, they are games like that. You modding them is changing the rules, but in the process you create rules that make sense for your version of the game that way. That doesn't change the fact that the game itself will still follow the rules set forth by the GM or the developers, and your own personals included, into that ruleset.

I just remembered that you don't like it when I break up your posts like that.

I don't use foreknowledge when making in-character decisions. This is why my characters sometimes make decisions I'd rather they didn't.

I think you're conflating in-game decisions with metagame decisions. Reloading is a metagame decision. It's necessarily based on metagame knowledge and is a wholly metagame event. Character creation is at least partly a metagame event driven by metagame decisions.

In-game decisions are the things I'm saying shouldn't have access to metagame data. What skills to learn, what tactics to employ, what equipment to use, what quests to accept, what to say moment-to-moment in a conversation (this is where the dialogue wheel lets me down, as I can't control that), what conclusions to draw.

Keep in mind, my conclusions as player may differ significantly from those of my character. When I'm creating a character, my opinions matter. When my character is making decisions, his opinion matters.

If a tabletop RPG is a game, how do you win?

[dreamgazer]

I get your distinctions here, Sylvius. You ain't so mad to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, it doesn't.

It would if you play Checkers on a Chessboard, otherwise, you are playing a variant of Chess on a Chessboard, the rules simply change if agreed upon by the players.

You can deviate from the game and their inherent rules, but in the end, you are still playing a game.

A game. Not chess.

As I said above, equivalence is binary. Something that is different from chess is not chess.

That's why the chessboard isn't a game, because it supports games other than chess. Chess is one specific game that can be played one specifc way, and any deviation from that renders it no longer chess. You're still playing with the chessboard, but you're playing a different game.

That's why a chessboard is a toy.

You can play a CRPG as a game - you can accept the restrictions of the designers and play it the way they intended and try to "win". But you don't have to. You can still play the RPG without accepting those restrictions. And that's what I want from a CRPG - a platform on which I can play as I see fit. Every RPG is a metaphorical sandbox.

[Paulomedi]

Autism.

[LinksOcarina]

But they corrupt the simulation. An uncorrupted simulation is an ideal to which to aspire.

There's no possible in-game justification for those events that doesn't involve rationalization, and rationalization is never okay.

If I can't map out the formal logic behind the decision in advance, I'm not satisfied with the decision.
Only because you're ascribing behaviour to me.
Information to which I don't appeal.
I determined that by running several theoretical permutations.

I don't hold beliefs.
I'm involved during character creation. I map out motives and objectives, and then I appeal to those for every decision.

If ever a decision doesn't match to a prevuously determined aspect of the character, then the character has no preference. I document those events so I can be sure I know which was chosen in case I need to back up later.

Choices that are driven by the character's design don't need to be documented, because the design is documented.

Incidentally, I'm about to replay DAI from an earlier save. I'm backing up to the very first save so I can keep the same face. Is that still the same character?

By your reasoning, it is. I don't see how you could possibly justify that, however.
I just remembered that you don't like it when I break up your posts like that.

I don't use foreknowledge when making in-character decisions. This is why my characters sometimes make decisions I'd rather they didn't.

I think you're conflating in-game decisions with metagame decisions. Reloading is a metagame decision. It's necessarily based on metagame knowledge and is a wholly metagame event. Character creation is at least partly a metagame event driven by metagame decisions.

In-game decisions are the things I'm saying shouldn't have access to metagame data. What skills to learn, what tactics to employ, what equipment to use, what quests to accept, what to say moment-to-moment in a conversation (this is where the dialogue wheel lets me down, as I can't control that), what conclusions to draw.

Keep in mind, my conclusions as player may differ significantly from those of my character. When I'm creating a character, my opinions matter. When my character is making decisions, his opinion matters.

If a tabletop RPG is a game, how do you win?

 

Sorry I have been busy with work, so this will be kind of short.

 

Also, you didn't have to break up your normal way of replying, I do appreciate it though, makes it easier to follow along IMO.

 

First, the ideal of an uncorrupted simulation is a belief in of itself, one that folks likely adhere to in achieving. The problem is its unmeasurable, because any force of reason would eventually boil down to partially rationalizing your actions, justifying the reasons behind them. Since a RPG game has rules to it that exist, and RPG video games have tighter constraints, the rationale is done in-context of the framework given to you.

 

In other words, you reason what actions to take within the milieu of the game itself; do I go to certain places for resources or information? Will it bring me closer to the goals set forth by my character, and by the game?

 

The thing is, character goals tend to run concurrently with in-game goals; most of the time it has to because of the way they are designed. Tabletop games you can sort of get away with that more, but most of the time, even with mods added, the game has constraints to it. So in a way it is forcing metagame knowledge to permeate, especially if you have gone through the process of the game already and are forced to reload. 

 

In-character decisions are informed by metagame decisions as much as any other reasoning attached to it, hence why a full on simulation is an ideal belief, not a reality. You, as the player, have metagame knowledge, and while your character might not, you as the player still present metagame knowledge into the equation subliminally, due to the focus of our minds on the rationale of our characters decisions. 

 

This is not trying to ascribe something to you personally, the thing is, we all do it. It is a fun exercise to try to push for that ideal, and its something we probably all do; whenever I played a game like Skyrim, I purposely limited myself when building characters, so that I can thematically "role-play" a type of character in the game. Skyrim had trouble with that because the game is built upon a power fantasy, but it was a fun time that kept me playing it longer than I would have.

 

The thing is though, I had accurate knowledge of where to go for certain equipment or spells that would enhance my character and make them more suitable for my role, if you will. That knowledge became paramount to the point where I noticed I tended to follow the same pattern with the characters I created; going right for the place where they can access everything they need. I rationalized that the characters would likely go to these places anyway, so that they can further their studies or do their duty- Mages to Winterhold, thieves heading to Riften, wandering Bounty Hunters and Alchemists helping out people or picking up bounties in bars. Even a cocksure archer who was actively looking for a fight.

 

Was it my character reasoning these events, or did previous metagame knowledge influence some of this? I would argue it was both, because full separation of character/player knowledge is impossible in the end sub-consciously. We, as people can justify them as separate (my characters opinion matters more than I own as you say) but previous knowledge still has a hand in guiding that opinion unless we actively try to limit ourselves in-game, and limit our abilities within the games rules.

 

I would argue that yes, any backup saves is still the same character, regardles of psychological intent. 

 

As for a tabletop RPG, you win by meeting your objectives. Individual objectvies, whatever they may be, and group objectives. You win by accomplishing something that is meaningful for not only your character, but for everyone else. You also win if you survive or achieve sub-objectives; a dungeon crawl is a scenario where you win if you get out. A dungeon-crawl with a in-game objective of finding a lost artifact, you win if you find the artifact while surviving the dungeon.

 

So "winning" is not necessarily end-game material, winning is achievement through milestones. Some you set, some the world sets, some the GM sets. It's a combination of the three. 

[AlanC9]

The thing is though, I had accurate knowledge of where to go for certain equipment or spells that would enhance my character and make them more suitable for my role, if you will. That knowledge became paramount to the point where I noticed I tended to follow the same pattern with the characters I created; going right for the place where they can access everything they need. I rationalized that the characters would likely go to these places anyway, so that they can further their studies or do their duty- Mages to Winterhold, thieves heading to Riften, wandering Bounty Hunters and Alchemists helping out people or picking up bounties in bars. Even a cocksure archer who was actively looking for a fight.

Is this a late-playthrough phenomenon, or did you think that the game told you all you needed to know for this the first time through?

[Navasha]

I think their decision to have the three colored choices was a poor one.   Honestly I am quite happy with the ME3 ending (following the release of the EC) as long as I simply ignore the child and his choices and head right for Destroy.  

 

They simply should have made a vast number of different outcomes of destroy based on the choices you made in the series.   The whole character reversal they attempted with Shepard was the awful part.     Here's a soldier who fought against the Reapers for years, told Saren he was an idiot for wanting to 'meld' with the Reapers, fought against Cereberus and seen the awful things they did to control everyone first hand.     Yet suddenly, you are offered those very same ideals as 'solutions'.    Just didn't make sense for Shepard to choose those based on everything he/she had been through. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sorry I have been busy with work, so this will be kind of short.

Also, you didn't have to break up your normal way of replying, I do appreciate it though, makes it easier to follow along IMO.

First, the ideal of an uncorrupted simulation is a belief in of itself, one that folks likely adhere to in achieving. The problem is its unmeasurable, because any force of reason would eventually boil down to partially rationalizing your actions, justifying the reasons behind them. Since a RPG game has rules to it that exist, and RPG video games have tighter constraints, the rationale is done in-context of the framework given to you.

In other words, you reason what actions to take within the milieu of the game itself; do I go to certain places for resources or information? Will it bring me closer to the goals set forth by my character, and by the game?

The thing is, character goals tend to run concurrently with in-game goals; most of the time it has to because of the way they are designed. Tabletop games you can sort of get away with that more, but most of the time, even with mods added, the game has constraints to it. So in a way it is forcing metagame knowledge to permeate, especially if you have gone through the process of the game already and are forced to reload.

In-character decisions are informed by metagame decisions as much as any other reasoning attached to it, hence why a full on simulation is an ideal belief, not a reality. You, as the player, have metagame knowledge, and while your character might not, you as the player still present metagame knowledge into the equation subliminally, due to the focus of our minds on the rationale of our characters decisions.

This is not trying to ascribe something to you personally, the thing is, we all do it. It is a fun exercise to try to push for that ideal, and its something we probably all do; whenever I played a game like Skyrim, I purposely limited myself when building characters, so that I can thematically "role-play" a type of character in the game. Skyrim had trouble with that because the game is built upon a power fantasy, but it was a fun time that kept me playing it longer than I would have.

The thing is though, I had accurate knowledge of where to go for certain equipment or spells that would enhance my character and make them more suitable for my role, if you will. That knowledge became paramount to the point where I noticed I tended to follow the same pattern with the characters I created; going right for the place where they can access everything they need. I rationalized that the characters would likely go to these places anyway, so that they can further their studies or do their duty- Mages to Winterhold, thieves heading to Riften, wandering Bounty Hunters and Alchemists helping out people or picking up bounties in bars. Even a cocksure archer who was actively looking for a fight.

Was it my character reasoning these events, or did previous metagame knowledge influence some of this? I would argue it was both, because full separation of character/player knowledge is impossible in the end sub-consciously. We, as people can justify them as separate (my characters opinion matters more than I own as you say) but previous knowledge still has a hand in guiding that opinion unless we actively try to limit ourselves in-game, and limit our abilities within the games rules.

I would argue that yes, any backup saves is still the same character, regardles of psychological intent.

The point of formalizing the logic is that we can go back through it and verify that we didn't make any mistakes. It turns reasoning into math, and no one claims that people can't separate themselves from math problems (though I have met people like that).

Yes, my character designs are often based on metagame knowledge, but the in-game decisions must follow logically (by which I mean logical deduction) from the character's personality.

My first Warden refused to accept his own mortality. He didn't see why his death shouldbe inevitable, so his primary objective throughout the game was to achieve immortality.

Meeting Avernus - a mage who'd lived for centuries - was particularly heartening.

What that meant was, from the moment of the Joining, his primary objective was that of cleansing the taint. Defeating the Archdemon was a necessary, but incidental step.

As for a tabletop RPG, you win by meeting your objectives. Individual objectvies, whatever they may be, and group objectives. You win by accomplishing something that is meaningful for not only your character, but for everyone else. You also win if you survive or achieve sub-objectives; a dungeon crawl is a scenario where you win if you get out. A dungeon-crawl with a in-game objective of finding a lost artifact, you win if you find the artifact while surviving the dungeon.

So "winning" is not necessarily end-game material, winning is achievement through milestones. Some you set, some the world sets, some the GM sets. It's a combination of the three.

You're still talking about a specific adventure or campaign, not the game itself. The game itself is the set of rules in the book. There's nothing there about what the objective is. The rules tell us only how the stats work.

[Rappeldrache]

They should separate at the end better between the "World situation" and "Heros personal situation". What they do with the world: Please don't smash it, but surprise me. Here they can't give us TO MANY choices, thats all right for me.

 

BUT: What they do with the "Hero": Please give different choices what happen to him / her, about his personal destiny:

 

- Dying like an as.shole

- Dying like a hero

- Become an evil monster, crazy and smash everything around him / her (with or without tentacles   )

- Disappear in a unknown area

- Leaving and have some little adventures (with or without romance, IF there is one)

- Leaving and have a calm life, retire from everything (with or without romance - with or without 43 children)

 

And it should be possible to get this choices by your gameplay through all the threee parts. If you play like "this" than you can't choose an Happy-end anymore, no way. But if you played like "this" you can choose EVERY ending. And so on ....

 

To be honest: THIS was exact what I thought would happen at the end of ME3: Some choices about the personal destiny of the Hero, depending on different gameplays in all the 3 parts together.

 

.

[N7Jamaican]

The game will end on a cliff hanger.