Understanding Roleplaying - The Easy Guide For Dumbfucks

[sportforredneck]

marketed as a Survival Horror game and so was Resident Evil 4.

Drunken spaniards = horror.

 

[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.

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.

Think of it this way; your well-crafted arguement presents me with several replies, dialogue choices if you will, and I have to pick one. If I say "Xi you are an idiot, piss off." I will have choosen the dickhead role. Alternatively, I could choose "I agree completely" and be nice. Instead I choose "Think of it this way...," the argumentative forum poster with too much time on his hands because it won't fucking stop snowing outside role. The point is, once I respond, my part in choosing a role is done for the moment. Of course, in any rpg worth a shit the npc should respond in some appropriate way to me and the world itself might be irrevocably changed. That's more a matter of quality though, the response dosn't really affect the role you've chosen- your role has affected it. Whether it opens a thousand new paths or none, I have been given a choice of roles and played one. I agree with you though, that it would take a lot more to be considered a good rpg.

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.

To some extent thats true. If your refussal brings the game to a full stop or if the choice has no implication for your role then, yes, it would be irrelevent. However, if the choice to accept a quest has a moral implication aren't you advancing your persona by accepting or declining? For example, one character might find killing a priest unacceptable, another character you might play would enjoy that kind of thing. It's roleplaying in its simplest form.

 

[Xi]

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).

Arguably, without PnP there would be no Video game RPG. The fact that it's never been accurately represented in a video game is the entire point of threads like this.

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?

No I think Wizardy 8 does fall into the category but barely. It's much more RPG then a game like Diablo even though it lacks a lot of specifics that the Codex discusses. I'm still playing Wizardy 8 so I cannot give specifics just yet, but from my experience so far, it does appear to offer choice/consequence.

 

[Xi]

However, if the choice to accept a quest has a moral implication aren't you advancing your persona by accepting or declining?

No, because it only has an effect on your imagination and zero consequence effect in game.

Edit: If roleplaying was that dependent on imagination then all video games could be classified as RPG because you could just imagine the roleplaying elements. Your imagination can only be used for immersion purposes. The game must provide choices and consequences. Plus that's only "1" choice. How does that help to define your class role? Pretty fucking weak if you ask me. It's just not roleplaying.

 

[kingcomrade]

The fact that it's never been accurately represented in a video game is the entire point of threads like this.

PnP is the new communism. /common refrain

 

[Xi]

The fact that it's never been accurately represented in a video game is the entire point of threads like this.

PnP is the new communism. /common refrain

 

[Joe Krow]

However, if the choice to accept a quest has a moral implication aren't you advancing your persona by accepting or declining?

No, because it only has an effect on your imagination and zero consequence effect in game.

Edit: If roleplaying was that dependent on imagination then all video games could be classified as RPG because you could just imagine the roleplaying elements. Your imagination can only be used for immersion purposes. The game must provide choices and consequences. Plus that's only "1" choice. How does that help to define your class role? Pretty fucking weak if you ask me. It's just not roleplaying.

Deciding which "jobs" you take can be very significant in terms of role and it has nothing to do with imaginition (accept maybe the game designers lack of it). Accepting contracts from the assassins guild while refusing to help the church adds to your characters persona. Granted this is the lowest form of roleplaying and ideally accepting one would preclude the otheras a consequence (just to be logiclly consistant.. a problem in "do all the quesst" games) but I wouldn't say that means your not playing an rpg... your just playing a piss poor one.

 

[spacemoose]

so let me get this straight. you're insisting that there are some three criteria for a game to have RPG plastered on the box. you admit that just fulfilling just these three requirements will result in an utter shit game. ...AND you have something against indie rpgs.

what the fuck are you doing on the codex you shitnugget?

 

[Joe Krow]

so let me get this straight. you're insisting that there are some three criteria for a game to have RPG plastered on the box. you admit that just fulfilling just these three requirements will result in an utter shit game. ...AND you have something against indie rpgs.

what the fuck are you doing on the codex you shitnugget?

Yeah, I know, they said the same thing on the ESF. "You can't define an rpg." "I know it when I see it." You fuck-wits don't have any more of a clue then they do. Sad.

Still though it would be nice to form some kind of cohesive model. What requirements would you add? An eight branch minimum? A three ending requirement? I bet you'd make a real fun flowchart. Yeah. Rpg bliss. When defining somethiing it's best to stick to what it actually is rather then what you wish it was. For starters anyway...

About the "indies"... I'm not a retro gamer. I loved the classics and would love to see that style gameply implemented in a modern pc game. Untill that happens I don't see any point in playing poorly made imitations. I still play the originals from time to time and indies just don't compare. "They will someday." Oh good. Let me know when they do. I'll play them then.

 

[Dpayne]

I like the idea of perhaps having ten different conditions, and if a game meets, say, 4 of them it's an rpg (similar to the traditional method of defining whether or not something qualifies as science fiction), but I can't see that being very popular here.

 

[Joe Krow]

I like the idea of perhaps having ten different conditions, and if a game meets, say, 4 of them it's an rpg (similar to the traditional method of defining whether or not something qualifies as science fiction), but I can't see that being very popular here.

Yeah. Try tapping your heels together and saying "I wish this was Fall Out" ten times. You'll either have a bonofide rpg or you'll end up in Kansas.

 

[Human Shield]

RPGs are composed of two parts. A system controlled by choice not reflexes, and a creative agenda: gamist, simulationist, or narrativist.

JA2 has a system but not a creative agenda, a strategy game.
Diablo has a creative agenda (gamist) but a mixed action system, an action RPG for lack of a better term.

Dungeon crawlers, Wizardry games, Fallout, Planescape, are all RPGs with different success levels of how they met their creative agendas and how the system reinforced it.

Non-linear is not an RPG, it is something that, if used correctly, can enhance simulationism.
Dialog and story is not an RPG, it is something that, if used correctly, can enhance simulationism or narrativism.

 

[spacemoose]

When defining somethiing it's best to stick to what it actually is rather then what you wish it was. For starters anyway...

hell naw. I wouldn't want to play the shits you've defined as rpgs. I don't want the rpg label to be plastered on crap, as it has consitently been. there are higher standards, go look in the friggin monkey thread for definitions of what rpg is expected to be.

About the "indies"... I'm not a retro gamer. I loved the classics and would love to see that style gameply implemented in a modern pc game. Untill that happens I don't see any point in playing poorly made imitations. I still play the originals from time to time and indies just don't compare. "They will someday." Oh good. Let me know when they do. I'll play them then.

fuck your shit. games like prelude to darkness, teudogar, and to a lesser extent the exile series are the games I want more of. and I sure as fuck am glad that DISGUSTING BASEMENT DWELLERS are making excellent games for me, when the big studios have all gone for the lowest common denominator (your fucking definition)

 

[denizsi]

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

"Individually" is the key word here. When you say those three features are exclusive to RPGs, it means those three features as a whole consitute an RPG and are therefore exclusive to RPGs, because obviously, a game can not have those features and still not be an RPG for you. In other words, everything I said was accurate.

To go over it once more (rest of your original sentence which makes HUGE! difference but I didn't quote in my earlier post is in italic) :

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 three features together make an RPG for you. That's what "they are exclusive to RPGs" mean, which is, again (to prevent confusion), what you claim: "a game with those 3 is an RPG and an RPG have those 3 features".

Let's move on to some more nonsense:

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.

What is control of actions? What is an action in a game? Is there a game where you are not in control of your actions? Of course not, so what's the point of saying that? it exactly amounts to saying "games are different than movies because you play it yourself". You managed to blabber for a paragraph without any meaning; congratulations on that, and mind you: that's an inherent trait of dumbfucks.

What you are trying to market as roleplaying of morals at its lowest is known as LARPERs' syndrome, which is another inherent trait of dumbfucks.

How stupid are you pal? I said it would not, in itself, make a game an rpg, not that it couldn't be one

Apparently not stupid enough so that we could speak on the same level of idiocy and understand and embrace each other. We have other dumbfucks around who you can socialise with though (you see, Codex caters to the lowest common denominator too!).

Read my question again and this time, imagine that it's about meaningful choice of action vs. meaningless choice of dialogue where there is also inventory and stats!

Which games have you mentioned that have all three but are not rpgs?

All the games I mentioned have all three and none of them are RPGs.

You listed some games but it sounded like you were hedging even then.

Too bad, there is nothing I can do about that unless you get to play them yourself.

I'd be curious what you consider these games to be? Morally ambigous tactical stratagy games? Full-service adventure games?

Morals? Who the fuck ever talked about morals other than you? You defend the RPG value of meaningless dialogue choices over meaningfull actions, while also stating that there is a roleplaying element of morals to be found in any game where you can opt to kill or not to kill completely irrelevant and insignificant NPCs, so apparently, any game with an inventory, useful or not, with stats that make sense or not, and with dialogue with meaningful choices or not, is an RPG for you, and Duke Nuke'm 3D, while not an RPG, has roleplaying elements at the lowest. In that case, the planet is choking full of RPGs. Get a fucking clue.

(Unbeknownst to you).

Eager to use newly learned words, are we? Try this: "these three features are exclusive to RPGs in juxtapoisition". Such are the wonders of vocabulary.

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?

Why did you refer to Oblivion there? Is Oblivion not an RPG? If Oblivion is an RPG, there is obviously some roleplaying going on there, than some mere illusion, no?

Still confused?

Not really. Funny that you ask this and mention semantics somewhere else, while showing a complete lack of grasp and coherence on them. Too much of a dumbfuck to know what you are writing yourself apparently.

As for your "choosing your action" crap, I think it's pretty obvious why it's such a nonsense and again, why you are a dumbfuck. I don't even need to slap this on your face.

 

[denizsi]

Yeah, I know, they said the same thing on the ESF. "You can't define an rpg." "I know it when I see it.

One of the differences you can't see due to being a dumbfuck is that there isn't a perfect harmony on what people here call an RPG and not an RPG. However, most people here don't try to downgrade fundamental traits of the genre to a few vague text-book features. The mere existence of the games I named and a lot more one could find on his/her own is a testimony to this and to your idiocy. That's also one of the reasons your title is a true reflection of your persona. You are so clueless, the opinions you have formed don't have a concrete base composed of information and experience to stand on.

 

[Joe Krow]

denizsi,
You truely are a little daft. Did you think I would be insulted by your publicly working through my post and concluding that... your the only dumb ass that wasn't getting it? "Oh, you meant individuallly exclusive" "Oh, your right, it would be redundant"... Welcome to the discussion shitbag. Glad you got it now.

As i've already stated, in my opini0on, what sepertates rpgs from other genres is that the player controls the internal (stats), external (inventory) and moral (dailogue) disposition of his character. There are, concievably, other ways to effect all three but i'm talking about roleplaying games as they exist currently. Consequences do not create a characters role and are therefore a bonus. The role creates the consequence, it connot be otherwise. As long as the player is allowed to expound on his persona by being presented with choices he is roleplaying (questions of degree aside).

The question I raised was, "can choices be created by the openess of the game world and would this be enough to call a game an rpg." I don't think so. Rpgs are designed to pose questions directly to the character. Including arbitrary roleplaying would open the door to first person shooters, Grand Theft Auto, Deer Hunter 6, etc. These opportunities create the illusion of roleplaying. Speaking of which...

Oblivion has the kind of simplified accept/refuse choices you'd find in any hack and slash. It allows bare bones roleplaying by allowing players to make minor moral choices in which quests to accept or refuse. Even this aspect is undercut when the opposed path remains open after choosing (paladin/assassins anyone?). The illusion I spoke of is created by the other 90% of the game. The world is open enough to allow the player to make moral choices for his character arbitrarily. The ESF consider these aspects to be the heart of "roleplaying." I'm argueing it's not roleplaying at all. Work through my previous posts until you understand what i'm saying. Do this publicly if at all possible (I think its cute).

 

[denizsi]

and moral (dailogue) disposition of his character.

No. You originally defended dialogue choices, even if it meant nothing, morals included or not, and I explicitly asked if it were this way. There are other ways to achieve levels of "moral disposition", outside of dialogue, which do not constitue a fundamental feature for RPGs in your book. Your original stance was in favour of dialogue with choices no matter what. Stop making shit up and expanding your original opinions. Preserve some fucking integrity in your opinions.

Consequences do not create a characters role and are therefore a bonus. As long as the player is allowed to expound on his persona by being presented with choices he is roleplaying (questions of degree aside).

The world is open enough to allow the player to make moral choices for his character arbitrarily. The ESF consider these aspects to be the heart of "roleplaying." I'm argueing it's not roleplaying at all.

I love when dumbfucks contradict themselves in the same post.

The role creates the consequence, it connot be otherwise.

"Roleplaying is playing a role". LOL.

The naked women in alien cocoon in Duke Nuke'm 3D say "kill me" in a begging tone. Shit, I just can't get my head around to killing them, it's such a terrible moral choice. Should I ignore and walk past them, kicking alien ass and chewing bubble gum, leaving them to meet their unavoidable demise slowly, or just end it right there? Choices, choices.. I tell you, it's tough roleplaying. It's such a depressive game. I can only imagine that gamers will start commiting suicide when DNF comes out.

 

[Joe Krow]

Read my posts again. Study them. Your answers are there. Tired of repeating... so tired.

 

[denizsi]

Tired of repeating... so tired.

I can imagine that. Dumbfucks do that a lot, somehow believing they are presenting valid arguements despite the obvious incoherence.

 

[Joe Krow]

and moral (dailogue) disposition of his character.

No. You originally defended dialogue choices, even if it meant nothing, morals included or not, and I explicitly asked if it were this way. There are other ways to achieve levels of "moral disposition", outside of dialogue, which do not constitue a fundamental feature for RPGs in your book. Your original stance was in favour of dialogue with choices no matter what. Stop making shit up and expanding your original opinions. Preserve some fucking integrity in your opinions.

30 posts ago

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.

28 posts ago

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.

15 posts ago

To some extent thats true. If your refussal brings the game to a full stop or if the choice has no implication for your role then, yes, it would be irrelevent. However, if the choice to accept a quest has a moral implication aren't you advancing your persona by accepting or declining? For example, one character might find killing a priest unacceptable, another character you might play would enjoy that kind of thing. It's roleplaying in its simplest form.

10 posts ago

Accepting contracts from the assassins guild while refusing to help the church adds to your characters persona. Granted this is the lowest form of roleplaying and ideally accepting one would preclude the otheras a consequence (just to be logiclly consistant.. a problem in "do all the quesst" games) but I wouldn't say that means your not playing an rpg... your just playing a piss poor one.

I changed my position? Do tell ...seems pretty consistant to me. Can you read?

Consequences do not create a characters role and are therefore a bonus. As long as the player is allowed to expound on his persona by being presented with choices he is roleplaying (questions of degree aside).

The world is open enough to allow the player to make moral choices for his character arbitrarily. The ESF consider these aspects to be the heart of "roleplaying." I'm argueing it's not roleplaying at all.

Fixed.

The naked women in alien cocoon in Duke Nuke'm 3D say "kill me" in a begging tone. Shit, I just can't get my head around to killing them, it's such a terrible moral choice. Should I ignore and walk past them, kicking alien ass and chewing bubble gum, leaving them to meet their unavoidable demise slowly, or just end it right there? Choices, choices.. I tell you, it's tough roleplaying. It's such a depressive game. I can only imagine that gamers will start commiting suicide when DNF comes out.

This seems garbled. Are you busy? Trying to stick your dick up your ass perhaps? You know thats impossible right? That's why God gave you balls.

 

[denizsi]

30 posts ago.. blah blah
28 posts ago.. blah blah
15 posts ago.. blab blah
10 posts ago.. blah blah

Wow, you have been writing the same meaningless shit for that long, you are definitely consistent; no matter what, you keep writing. Consistency at best, lol! Unfortunately for you, while part of your dumbfuckery stems from the ability to form those stupid opinions you repeated that many times, all that shit is completely irrelevant because source of your inconsistency stems from elsewhere and I explicitly wrote earlier where that is. Hint!: favouring meaningless choices of a certain type over meaningul choices of another type. No, I'm not actually expecting you to notice your own shit on your own face. Then there is also this:

Consequences do not create a characters role and are therefore a bonus. As long as the player is allowed to expound on his persona by being presented with choices he is roleplaying (questions of degree aside).

The world is open enough to allow the player to make moral choices for his character arbitrarily. The ESF consider these aspects to be the heart of "roleplaying." I'm argueing it's not roleplaying at all.

I'm afraid the parts you bolded do nothing to help your cause, because, as you pointed out yourself, you wrote some meaningless shit for so many posts, which boils down to a stupid rationale like how "teh choice to kill or not to kill", "teh choice to steal or not to steal" is roleplaying for you, but in essence, that is exactly what Oblivion does, to which you say "not roleplaying at all". That's also the reason I gave an example from Duke Nuke'm 3D. However, you are too much of a dumbfuck to notice either your inconsistence or the example.

Finally let me present this invaluable gem:

Whoaa, That's some dialogue! Those are some moral choices! I wonder if this game could be an RPG! Oh wait, I know this one:

With all those qualities its pretty clear your adapting a personality (dialogue)

So, this game is so definitely an RPG if only it also has inventory and stats, because it has doilogaue wtih choyses! Again, look at the dialogue choices! Kewl! That's some hardcore roleplaying at its heart! I'd rather have that instead of all the shit in the world you could achieve simply by non-dialogue actions!

 

[Joe Krow]

Shouldn't you be on the ESF? Your nonsense is so reminisant . Nice..errr...arguement?

 

[kingcomrade]

It's spelt argument.

 

[Dpayne]

Zhu's Hope?

 

[denizsi]

What the hell?