Understanding Roleplaying - The Easy Guide For Dumbfucks

[Zomg]

I think Deus Ex has pretty good roleplaying, really. Most of the apparent player-effected story stuff is just facile shuffling over an immutable plot, but a naive playthrough can make it seem like a lot of big things are very dependent on what you do. It's legerdemain, but I don't knife the magician after the show for being a fucking lying fake. There are a lot of little "scenes" that let you effect some character for JC, too. Ability-wise there's a decent amount of flexibility.

 

[elander_]

I think its pretty much accepted that DX is a shit RPG - doesn't stop it being a hell of a game with a great storyline that is close behind Torment's.

Nobody is saying that DX isn't fun to play.

And your last paragraph is the opposite of true. You can't make a game AT ALL without setting a path for your player-forget about a great story.

You obviously didn't read what i wrote very well so here it is again.

"In an rpg every important or dramatic decision must be a choice that will leave a mark in the world. I don't see why Fallout isn't a good example of that. There is a main quest but i don't mind if it's only there to create some background as long as the rest of the game let's me roleplay."

The key words here are being able to make the important choices that will affect the world and not only at the end or at the beginning but in the entire game.

It's legerdemain, but I don't knife the magician after the show for being a fucking lying fake. There are a lot of little "scenes" that let you effect some character for JC, too. Ability-wise there's a decent amount of flexibility.

I think you are refering to reactions. It's true that the little rp chances that DX provides, outside the usual combat customization options, are well done and the reactions are also very well done and remind you all the time of the decisions you made but the decisions themselves are pretty much insignificant in the abysmal linearity and lack of choices of the entire game.

Fallout is the concept proof that an rp focused game can be done. There are other games that could be used as concept proof but Fallout is that is more familiar to everyone.

 

[Dpayne]

In an rpg every important or dramatic decision must be a choice that will leave a mark in the world.

Honestly I think it depends on the game. Diablo 2 is no less of an rpg (albeit an action one) just because it doesn't give you the option of choice.

Console Rpgs are still rpgs, and they never give you a choice.

RPG is a category, and there are subcategories in it. CRPGS is the term I use to describe games that fall into the definition you give just as JRPG defines games that follow the console style and Action RPG defines Diablo style games. They're still all RPGs they just offer different perspectives on what the experience should be, and they're all entertaining in their own ways it just largely depends on the gamers tastes and what they're in the mood for.

 

[elander_]

I'm not trying to say what an rpg is for everyone just what makes sense to be an rpg. Historically an rpg is something like Bards Tale, Diablo and Baldur's Gate. Most people consider any game with an inventory, some stats and a story an rpg even if your rp decisions will only marginally affect anything. Some devs tried to make rpgs that were focused on rp instead of a story and that is the real source of the conflict. Should rpgs offer a prefab story and only allow characters to make marginal choices or should rpgs offer enough meaningful and important choices so that the player can build his own story of the world. And like a good DM, the game AI, should adapt to the players choices in a credible way. This interaction with the DM, for me, was always the most important thing. Where is rp when you just sit at a table with a guy telling you what to do at all time. In the same way it makes sense that a game that focus on rp should be called an rpg and a game that isn't focused on rpg should not. Unless of course it's an hybrid which most modern rpgs really are.

 

[Dpayne]

By your definition Diablo isn't an rpg, and I guarantee you a great majority of people would disagree with that, but I guess the whole thing is entirely opinion.

 

[denizsi]

How conveniant that it's ok when dumbfucks make vague statements like "What makes a game an RPG is this, that and it" and then attack others for doing the same but only when cornered. Lol. I could count some games off the top of my mind, but knowing that you are a dumbfuck, you will come up with more "in depth" explanations for the three features you just gave when you will be cornered, so all I can say is just fuck you. One can only be a retarded dumbfuck to think that there can not be any or even considerable amount of games which have all three of those features, and for that, you rightly deserve your title.

But here are some anyway, which have dialogue with dialogue choices, traditional inventories and stats (even though some of them might be out because you expanded your feature explanation in a very specific way in your last post) NOLF series, Nemesis:Wizardry Adventure, Sanity: Aiken's Artifact, Gun, Boiling Point, Knights of the Temple 2, Pirates of the Caribbean. There are plenty of point&click games of 90s which have all three, like Nemesis I mentioned above.

 

[elander_]

By your definition Diablo isn't an rpg, and I guarantee you a great majority of people would disagree with that, but I guess the whole thing is entirely opinion.

It's a mater of opinion like everything is a mater of opinion. There are uninformed opinions, opinions people take by convenience or because they don't care about role playing and instead prefer action or storytelling, there are informed opinions and debated opinions. If you want to think that Diablo is an rpg, i'm sure you will feel comfortable thinking that as so many people think the same way as you do, if that is only what it takes for you to form an opinion about something.

However, even at a more lite categorization of rpg i don't know why you would anyway say Diablo is an rpg when a tactical combat game is the category that game truly belongs. It's strange that people feel the need to call their games rpgs to give them value and then don't care about roleplaying besides combat customization and side-quests.

 

[Bloodeyes]

Which reminds me: How many of you managed to save your brother from greusome death at the hands of the UNATCO troops on the first playthrough?

I did

I did.

 

[Joe Krow]

How conveniant that it's ok when dumbfucks make vague statements like "What makes a game an RPG is this, that and it" and then attack others for doing the same but only when cornered. Lol. I could count some games off the top of my mind, but knowing that you are a dumbfuck, you will come up with more "in depth" explanations for the three features you just gave when you will be cornered, so all I can say is just fuck you. One can only be a retarded dumbfuck to think that there can not be any or even considerable amount of games which have all three of those features, and for that, you rightly deserve your title.

But here are some anyway, which have dialogue with dialogue choices, traditional inventories and stats (even though some of them might be out because you expanded your feature explanation in a very specific way in your last post) NOLF series, Nemesis:Wizardry Adventure, Sanity: Aiken's Artifact, Gun, Boiling Point, Knights of the Temple 2, Pirates of the Caribbean. There are plenty of point&click games of 90s which have all three, like Nemesis I mentioned above.

Congrats on not making any fucking sense. Was that baby talk?

Still no definition from you. Still a coward? Use the big brain of yours. You'll come up with something. I have faith.

I admit I have not played the games you mention but i'm assuming you do not consider them to be rpgs. You didn't mention, why not? The side of the box maybe? With all those qualities its pretty clear your adapting a personality (dialogue), developing your traits and abilities (stats), and customizing your physical presence (inventory).

To boil down my view, an rpg allows the player to define his/her avatar internally (stats), externally (inventory), and in relation to the world through choices in his actions and conversation (dialogue). Thus they allow for roleplaying. You have a better definition?

The "dumbfuck" tag only means I disagree with VD. He's as much a nazi as any of the Beth moderators he's critical of. I think I hurt his feelings. It dosn't really bother me though and you sholdn't let it distract you.

 

[psycojester]

Oh where would the codex be without hissy fits from Dumbfucks. Why can't you just be like Volourn and graciously accept that nobody respects your opinion?

 

[denizsi]

Congrats on not making any fucking sense. Was that baby talk?

No, that was a straight answer to the original demand by you, which was naming certain games, not going into definitions. I never intended to go into clear cut definitions in the first place as I believe there is more to what exactly constitutes a CRPG than a few text-book definitions, which is also an undying subject of debate here due to the said reason, which you could find out yourself had you ever bothered to take a look at a certain sticky thread. Redding is teh hard apparently.

I admit I have not played the games you mention but

It shows. It also shows the same about you for a lot more relevant games. No surprise though.

and in relation to the world through choices in his actions and conversation (dialogue).

There you go. Now it's choices through actions in addition to dialogue. You just upped your feature count to 4 from 3. Fucking hypocrite. At least stay fucking consistent. Judging by your illiteracy, I can tell that you would probably shocked to death and back to learn about the amount of games accepted as RPGs which have dialogue without choices, with choices but without any consequences and both without any actions that affect the gameworld. It might be even safe to say that about 3/4 CRPGs play without any significant choice&consequences whatsoever.

Once again, I'm hesitant to go into definitions because of genre-crossing or the lack of distinctive features exclusive to RPGs (Stats? Strategy and tactical games. Inventory? Action, adventure and tactical games. Dialogue? Adventure games. etc.) There are certain games some of us call definitely an RPG while others piss at the idea and it shows that in such cases, clear-cut definitions simply aren't applicable.

For me, it's dialogue and non-dialogue choices and appropriate reactions above all else, above stats, above an inventory, which is most often opposed by the idea that it then becomes synonymous with adventures games, which is ridiculous because majority of adventure games are rail-roaded puzzle games focusing on story with few multi-paths here and there which is kind of equivalent of taking the other corridoor to enemy base in an action game. However, that's not a definite line where a game stops or starts being a CRPG for me. Every game needs to be considered on its own, without respect to textbook feature definitions. There is your answer.

That said, you really show why you deserve your title in every message you post. So tell me, what's next in your list of features, and while at it, why don't you tell us your favourite CRGPs as well as some recent games you consider to be CRPGs (Whether you like or not)?

 

[Joe Krow]

and in relation to the world through choices in his actions and conversation (dialogue).

There you go. Now it's choices through actions in addition to dialogue. You just upped your feature count to 4 from 3. Fucking hypocrite. At least stay fucking consistent. Judging by your illiteracy, I can tell that you would probably shocked to death and back to learn about the amount of games accepted as RPGs which have dialogue without choices, with choices but without any consequences and both without any actions that affect the gameworld. It might be even safe to say that about 3/4 CRPGs play without any significant choice&consequences whatsoever.

Once again, I'm hesitant to go into definitions because of genre-crossing or the lack of distinctive features exclusive to RPGs (Stats? Strategy and tactical games. Inventory? Action, adventure and tactical games. Dialogue? Adventure games. etc.) There are certain games some of us call definitely an RPG while others piss at the idea and it shows that in such cases, clear-cut definitions simply aren't applicable.

For me, it's dialogue and non-dialogue choices and appropriate reactions above all else, above stats, above an inventory, which is most often opposed by the idea that it then becomes synonymous with adventures games, which is ridiculous because majority of adventure games are rail-roaded puzzle games focusing on story with few multi-paths here and there which is kind of equivalent of taking the other corridoor to enemy base in an action game. However, that's not a definite line where a game stops or starts being a CRPG for me. Every game needs to be considered on its own, without respect to textbook feature definitions. There is your answer.

That said, you really show why you deserve your title in every message you post. So tell me, what's next in your list of features, and while at it, why don't you tell us your favourite CRGPs as well as some recent games you consider to be CRPGs (Whether you like or not)?

There you go denizsi. You formed an opinion. I knew you could do it!

First off, the matter of choosing your actions. I didn't include it as a criteria because its not exclusive to rpgs, not because its not reqired in them. The point of my post was to clarify what I believe seperates rpgs from whatever else they may be called. All genres offer the player control of their actions. Saying it is a requirement of the genre would be redundant. Its a prerequisite of games in general. I'll assume you see the distinction and that you were just spinning your wheels there.

The grey area, in terms of dialogue and choice, would be yes/no quest dispensors in hack and slash games like Diablo. Is there any roleplaying going on? I would argue that there is. For instance, I can choose to help the monk at the church but not the thief needing his good delivered. Helping one or the other, both, or niether defines your character in some way, however small. There is almost no depth in this choice and the result may not effect the game world at all, but a moral choice is being made and therefore, I would argue, it is roleplaying at its lowest form. Thats how games like Diablo and, my personal favorite of this type, Sacred, make the cut.

An interesting question would be, can a game be an rpg by offering moral decissions without dialogue? For instance if you have the option to walk into the church, kill the monk and evade the guards, or walk into the thiefs hideout, kill everyone and be rewarded, are you roleplaying? Whats significant is that you made a moral choice for your character. If we were to include these kinds of decisions as a criteria Grand Theft Auto would certainly be an rpg. Compare Bloodlines to GTA: San Andreas... its a very fine line. Dialogue reinforces the decission but dosn't make it less relevant.

Oh yeah. What do I like? Ultima 4-7 are the finest rpgs ever made bar none. They will most likely never be topped (unless Bethesda somehow gets the Ultima liscence. [i'm kidding fuckhead]). Morrowind, Fall Out, NWN, Sacred, Arcanum, Dues-X, and Baldur's Gate were all good. Oblivion and Fable were piss poor rpgs but rpgs none the less.

 

[elander_]

Only morons feel good saving stupid peasants or saving their world in a computer game. So what's the fun of having choices if it's only for morons to feel they made a good action? What's fun is having choices you feel like you want to explore and see what reactions you will get, how your reputation will change, how you will affect the world somehow and deal with it. Then repeat until you have played all there is to play for your character of choice.

 

[Joe Krow]

Thinking a little more about it, I can't see how merely including options that have a moral implication would be enough to make a game an rpg. If this were true any game with an open enough environment would become an rpg. Grand Theft Auto, a hunting game where you can shoot your fellow hunters, a driving game where you can run over pedestrians- you are presented with moral choices inadvertantly by the environment. When choices are required, almost exclusively through dialogue, you put the question directly to the player. It dosn't matter whether it has immediate ramifications, a subtle shift in faction, or no effect on the rest of the worldl, you have created a roleplaying environment by insisting on a decission.

 

[denizsi]

First off, the matter of choosing your actions. I didn't include it as a criteria because its not exclusive to rpgs

So inventory, stats and dialogue are exclusive to RPGs? No? Well, that's what your sentence implies, unbeknownst to you. I've already presented examples of games which have those three but aren't RPGs by any means, so those features can not be deterministic for the genre's definition.

The point of my post was to clarify what I believe seperates rpgs from whatever else they may be called

I can see the presentation issues you have with your points.

would be yes/no quest dispensors in hack and slash games like Diablo

Actually, there wasn't a single yes/no quest in Diablo, but let's pass on that one as it isn't really important.

[i'm kidding fuckhead]

Good for you.

Thinking a little more about it, I can't see how merely including options that have a moral implication would be enough to make a game an rpg. Using my example from the last post, any game with an open enough environment would be an rpg. Grand Theft Auto, a hunting game where you can shoot your fellow hunters, a driving game where you can run over pedestrians- you are presented with moral choices inadvertantly by the environment. When choices are required, almost exclusively through dialogue, you put the question directly to the player. It dosn't matter whether it has immediate ramifications, a subtle shift in faction, or no effect on the rest of the worldl, you have created a roleplaying environment by insisting on a decission.

So a game where you can act on your moral choices with reasonable reactions but not choose your dialogue lines can not be an RPG whereas a game where almost nothing you do or say matters as far as gameplay goes but you can pick your own dialogue line is an RPG? If not, you are having some serious issues getting your point across.

 

[Dpayne]

It feels like people are really trying to apply the pen and paper definition of roleplaying, and I honestly don't think that really applies (we've certainly never had an accurate representation of that experience in digital form, and I don't think it's possible for the most part).

 

[kingcomrade]

unbeknownst to you.

but beknownst to us.

 

[Joe Krow]

Speak english much? Maybe you should loosen your turbin or something?

First off, the matter of choosing your actions. I didn't include it as a criteria because its not exclusive to rpgs

So inventory, stats and dialogue are exclusive to RPGs? No? Well, that's what your sentence implies, unbeknownst to you. I've already presented examples of games which have those three but aren't RPGs by any means, so those features can not be deterministic for the genre's definition.

The reason actions are not included in my definition is because controlling ones actions is an aspect of almost every other genres as well. If you read more then the 1/2 sentence you quoted it should be clear. The three things I mentioned are required to create a rpg but are not individually exclusive to rpgs. I never claimed they were. However, when you have all three, in my opinioin, you have a roleplaying game. Period. Of course you knew that was my point but you needed some cheap points with Comode. Well done. Maybe he'll add something to the discussion? Hold your breath.

Which games have you mentioned that have all three but are not rpgs? You listed some games but it sounded like you were hedging even then. I'd be curious what you consider these games to be? Morally ambigous tactical stratagy games? Full-service adventure games? More semantics.

Thinking a little more about it, I can't see how merely including options that have a moral implication would be enough to make a game an rpg. Using my example from the last post, any game with an open enough environment would be an rpg. Grand Theft Auto, a hunting game where you can shoot your fellow hunters, a driving game where you can run over pedestrians- you are presented with moral choices inadvertantly by the environment. When choices are required, almost exclusively through dialogue, you put the question directly to the player. It dosn't matter whether it has immediate ramifications, a subtle shift in faction, or no effect on the rest of the worldl, you have created a roleplaying environment by insisting on a decission.

So a game where you can act on your moral choices with reasonable reactions but not choose your dialogue lines can not be an RPG whereas a game where almost nothing you do or say matters as far as gameplay goes but you can pick your own dialogue line is an RPG? If not, you are having some serious issues getting your point across.

How stupid are you pal? I said it would not, in itself, make a game an rpg, not that it couldn't be one (Unbeknownst to you). I made it pretty clear how other genres could include these kinds of decissions without being rpgs and how openess can create the illussion of roleplaying (see Oblivion). Rpgs, by their nature, require choices of the player. Still confused?

 

[Sentenza]

By your definition Diablo isn't an rpg, and I guarantee you a great majority of people would disagree with that, but I guess the whole thing is entirely opinion.

Sure it is, just not a very good one, since you're either the sword weilding monster-killer dude, the arrow throwing monster-killer dude or the magik-type monster-killer dude

 

[Dpayne]

Sure it is, just not a very good one, since you're either the sword weilding monster-killer dude, the arrow throwing monster-killer dude or the magik-type monster-killer dude

True, but no one ever said the term RPG was an indicator of quality, and Diablo (and it's sequel) are okay once. Kind of boring, but there are far worse games (and action RPGS out there).

 

[Xi]

Thinking a little more about it, I can't see how merely including options that have a moral implication would be enough to make a game an rpg. If this were true any game with an open enough environment would become an rpg. Grand Theft Auto, a hunting game where you can shoot your fellow hunters, a driving game where you can run over pedestrians- you are presented with moral choices inadvertantly by the environment. When choices are required, almost exclusively through dialogue, you put the question directly to the player. It dosn't matter whether it has immediate ramifications, a subtle shift in faction, or no effect on the rest of the worldl, you have created a roleplaying environment by insisting on a decission.

I don't agree with this at all. You aren't roleplaying your "role" in the scenario you provided, but rather just "playing" the game. Choices must encompass specific options that help to define the role you are playing. These choices must affect the world and the character beyond simple out of game satisfaction. Things have to revolve around the choices the character makes through consequences, or the choices one makes are pointless within the game and have no affect on the role one is playing.

Most games fail to offer enough choice to encompass all the specific roles they provide. So you have mages picking locks, thieves casting spells, and warriors using stealth simply to overcome the obstacle. Not that there's always a clear cut way to achieve a choice scenario based on class alone, sometimes you have to go outside of your skillset to accomplish things, but this is no exception for a roleplaying game. There should always be enough choices for your specific class and consequences that alter the game in ways that make sense for your class.

The grey area, in terms of dialogue and choice, would be yes/no quest dispensors in hack and slash games like Diablo.

Diablo is not a roleplaying game because it gives you the choice to complete a quest. Your analogy is flawed.

 

[Sentenza]

True, but no one ever said the term RPG was an indicator of quality, and Diablo (and it's sequel) are okay once. Kind of boring, but there are far worse games (and action RPGS out there).

actually, I was being sarcastic

If diablo was an RPG, I can't think of a single game wich wouldn't fit in that category, but some considers dungeon-crawlings a CRPG sub-genre, so I give you that

 

[Dpayne]

Again RPG is a pretty broad category (and really genre labels are pretty fucking meaningless in the long run, I mean Devil May Cry was fucking marketed as a Survival Horror game and so was Resident Evil 4).

I just don't think we need to spend a bunch of time stressing out about whether or not something is an rpg. It seems much more fruitful to stress out about whether or not something is a good game at all.

 

[Xi]

I just don't think we need to spend a bunch of time stressing out about whether or not something is an rpg. It seems much more fruitful to stress out about whether or not something is a good game at all.

Well there are plenty of us that do. Having a good knowledge of what constitutes actual "Roleplaying" within a video game is important if you are wanting to promote better roleplaying within video games. Yes there is a lot of opinion involved, however, there are still good opinions and better opinions. No one is nessecarily wrong, but some people have better definitions then others. Sure, you can say "well it's my opinion and I know what I like", but that doesn't mean you have achieved the best opinion for yourself. This is the epitome of debate. There is no reason to discuss anything if you aren't trying to achieve better understanding.

Bah it's getting too philosophical. The point is to achieve the best knowledge of what a roleplaying game is so that you can help to promote better roleplaying games. This is why you must slander games that are labeled "RPG" under mere pretenses. So if you think roleplaying is the sum of all action elements in a game, based on character class, then you have a weak opinion that should be ignored.

 

[Dpayne]

Again there are a vareity of elements, and I think we're getting too focused on the pen and paper definiton (which frankly has never been accurately represented).

Honestly, would you consider Wizardry 8 to not be an rpg even though there is very little roleplaying involved at all, and the game provides you with a minimal amount of choice in terms of how to handle problems, and it's very much a dungeon crawler game?