What is teh roleplaying?!

[Sarvis]

Like I said above, if an option fits the setting, the situation, and the <b>character,</b> it should be there. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be.

For a game to allow actual roleplaying it should let the player decide what options fit the character. Any limitations on choices do not allow that.

Our argument was about limited choices, and my point was that in real life, your choices are as limited as they are in a game. The difference is that life offers you many false options that are there to maintain your illusions of having control over it.

No, they are not. here's the guy who punched his boss: http://www.samoaobserver.ws/news/local/ln1204/0112ln008.htm.

The only limitations in life are created by what is physically possible. Anything physically possible can be attempted. People hit their bosses, they set themselves on fire, they do all kinds of retarded things that would never be considered logical choices.

Video games cannot allow that kind of freedom. PnP can.

That kind of freedom is what is needed to be able to roleplay.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do you believe no one has ever punched their boss?

One more time: " if the situation demanded such an option, that would be a different story, in which case such an option would become realistically available".

Even if you do angler is right. In a game people would probably want to.

Perhaps. See above.

Besides, isn't this how Final Fantasy RPGs work? They put you in situations where doing anything else wouldn't really make sense. So yeah, you have to follow Yuna around in FFX... but there's not much else that would make sense to do. The only other logical option would be to settle down in the main town and start a family or hang out in the blitz arena and just become a sports star. Of course you need to travel with Yuna anyway for that second option!

I have no idea who Yuna is and why following her around is the only thing that makes sense, so I'll ignore this example.

You're defense of limited options of roleplaying explains exactly why Final Fantasy can be an RPG without providing multiple paths.

I doubt that a situation could only have one option, but I haven't played the game.

My point is that at any given moment, your options are limited by a list created by existing factors. It's not overly complicated to figure that list out.

My options are limited by nothing but my own goals. I want to keep t his job and get promoted, therefore no boss punching. That is all.

And what do you think existing factors are? Of course, you want to keep your job and get promoted, don't we all? Those factors - fear of losing what you have and greed to get even more - limit your options in a much more effective way than an armed policeman would. Greed is good :wink:

There is no list out there providing me with several options

Are your day-to-day options limited? Yes or No will do

Life is not logical.

Didn't say it is. Now, you said you want to keep your job and get promoted. Surely, you have some ideas about what would secure your position and what would secure or at least increase your chances for promotion. Those ideas would follow some logic, no matter how twisted. You may decide that hard work would get you what you want, or you may decide that blackmailing or making out with your boss would get you that. The logic is there.

I know people that have threatened their bosses, I know people that have tackled their bosses while drunk and started kissing them. I'm sure you could find a news story out there of someone who had punched their boss.

So? What does that prove?

Would I punch my boss in real life? Probably not. In a PnP game? There's a good chance of it. In a video game? Option not provided. Oops!

Once again, depends on a setting, situation, and character. My point was NOT that it's impossible to hit a boss, but that options in life are limited too. Hitting a boss was an example of that, not a feature from a game.

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[Goliath]

(when i stay stick to character, if your character is evil, he will always kill civilians, if he is fearless, you will always attack, no matter what, etc. )

The intellectual level of Bethesda fanboys is getting close to reaching the one of the ordinary potato.

Bethesda CEO to a crowd of 14year old "gamerz":
What an impressive crowd: the retards, and the retard-mores.
Some people call you useless ritalin disposal units, I call you my base!

 

[Drakron]

Besides, isn't this how Final Fantasy RPGs work? They put you in situations where doing anything else wouldn't really make sense. So yeah, you have to follow Yuna around in FFX... but there's not much else that would make sense to do. The only other logical option would be to settle down in the main town and start a family or hang out in the blitz arena and just become a sports star. Of course you need to travel with Yuna anyway for that second option!

I have no idea who Yuna is and why following her around is the only thing that makes sense, so I'll ignore this example.

Play other FF games, FF X motivation was really badly presented ... Tidus joined up to reach Zarkafein (or whatever) but they kinda forgot to stress that point ... that and he had the hots for Yuna (and then decided "oh lets give some options" and he could hit on the black mage with the big tits that ends up with the Yevon fanatic on X-2).

FF VIII at least had a better presentation of story progression.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Like I said above, if an option fits the setting, the situation, and the <b>character,</b> it should be there. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be.

For a game to allow actual roleplaying it should let the player decide what options fit the character. Any limitations on choices do not allow that.

I meant characters supported by the game. For example, Diablo/DS doesn't have any speech skills, so that removes any conversation-based options.

No, they are not. here's the guy who punched his boss: http://www.samoaobserver.ws/news/local/ln1204/0112ln008.htm.

lol Sarvis. Try harder. "...A man who punched his boss after being fired..."

People hit their bosses, they set themselves on fire, they do all kinds of retarded things that would never be considered logical choices.

And do we want to see such an options in an RPG? No, seriously? Do we need an option of trying to swallow a grenage in a game just because it might be possible?

Video games cannot allow that kind of freedom. PnP can.

That kind of freedom is what is needed to be able to roleplay.

Freedom to be retarded?

 

[Sandelfron]

Some people call you useless ritalin disposal units, I call you my base!

It's a bit unfair to single out BS for that.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

The Elder Scrolls forums are massively active with over 72,000 members who have made over 3/4 of a million posts since the forums re-opened a little over a year ago.

You're bound to get a low signal-to-noise ratio in the more active forums.

 

[Drakron]

Like 3/4 of then ... but its no much diferent of the crap I seen on BioWare and Obsidian forums.

 

[Sarvis]

One more time: " if the situation demanded such an option, that would be a different story, in which case such an option would become realistically available".

Just wanting to wouldn't qualify?

I have no idea who Yuna is and why following her around is the only thing that makes sense, so I'll ignore this example.

Oh come on, you guys use games I haven't played against me all the time!

I doubt that a situation could only have one option, but I haven't played the game.

Well, you could be strapped into an electric chair waiting for your execution. Unless you're James Bond you prety much only have one option...

And what do you think existing factors are? Of course, you want to keep your job and get promoted, don't we all? Those factors - fear of losing what you have and greed to get even more - limit your options in a much more effective way than an armed policeman would. Greed is good :wink:

Yes, and that is quite different than simply not having that choice in your list of options. In fact, for it to be true roleplaying you would need to be able to punch your boss, get arrested and go to jail for some time... playing out some portion of the game as a prisoner.

Developers can't code/prepare all those scenarios ahead of time though, and technology can't come up with that kind of behavior dynamically like a DM could.

Are your day-to-day options limited? Yes or No will do

False dichotimize much? You want to hear yes, which is correct, and then claim victory because OBVIOUSLY if your real life options are limited to any amount (say 5 hundred billion) then it's the same thing if you only have 7 options.

So the answer is yes, but that only creates an absurdity.

Didn't say it is. Now, you said you want to keep your job and get promoted. Surely, you have some ideas about what would secure your position and what would secure or at least increase your chances for promotion. Those ideas would follow some logic, no matter how twisted. You may decide that hard work would get you what you want, or you may decide that blackmailing or making out with your boss would get you that. The logic is there.

Yes, and? <b>My goals</b>, based on <b>my desires</b> guide me towards making certain decisions. You are saying that the Developer provided goals, based on the developer provided desires are the same thing. They are not.

So? What does that prove?

That what you think of as the only logical options are not. That taking away options on the basis of whether or not you think someone should pick them destroys roleplaying, because it takes away the ability for people to take actions they think their characters would.

I meant characters supported by the game. For example, Diablo/DS doesn't have any speech skills, so that removes any conversation-based options.

Which fits perfectly fine with my overall claim that you cannot roleplay in a video game.

lol Sarvis. Try harder. "...A man who punched his boss after being fired..."

Still punching his boss. Two links down was a manager punching another manager. I probably could have found a guy getting fired after punching his boss, but I felt that the boss stepping in to keep this guy out of jail was more amusing. Also I thought it showed another option you probably would have kept out of a game because "it doesn't make sense."

And do we want to see such an options in an RPG? No, seriously? Do we need an option of trying to swallow a grenage in a game just because it might be possible?

Why not? Hell there ARE games out there with suicide as a possibility.

If you want to say that you can roleplay in a game, then everything that could be possible in real life should be possible. So should everything the altered physics of the game setting makes possible.

Freedom to be retarded?

What if I wanted to roleplay an Idiot Savant like Rain Man?

So yes.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Isn't a RPG supposed to be like an interactive story? If the options were limitless then the story could get off track and become pretty boring. Without a solid story a RPG is pretty weak. I like to have choices somewhat limited, but have my choices make a meaningful impact on how the story plays out. If you have unlimited options you end up with a game that is more boring than Morrowind which would make me take the "jump out window" choice that VD talked about earlier.

 

[Sarvis]

Isn't a RPG supposed to be like an interactive story? If the options were limitless then the story could get off track and become pretty boring.

Well, that's where a DM steps in. If the story goes off track the DM can cook something up just as interesting for the next session, or steer the story back on track in a way that leaves the players feeling like they made important choices.

Without a solid story a RPG is pretty weak. I like to have choices somewhat limited, but have my choices make a meaningful impact on how the story plays out.

Final Fantasy games tend to be very, very strong on plot. I found Fallout's plot to be pretty weak... it was basically just a large FedEx quest.

Without a live DM you pretty much HAVE to make a plot weak so that the game can be flexible enough for the player to have any semblence of freedom.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What I meant was that it really doesn't affect you personally, as in real life, if you punched a polygonial boss.

It should affect your character as much as it would have affected you in real life, otherwise, what's the point?

By fitting the character, you mean the predetermined character personality the developers set for you? Then that's the opposite of an RPG isn't it?

I meant characters fitting the setting and the gameplay style, i.e. you can't play a wizard in Fallout, so no spellcasting options there.

Your choices in life are only limited by you (unless you're in a straight jacket or some other kind of holding device).

A very popular misconception. Your choices are limited by many other factors including previously made choices like chosing a career, spending money on something, or even marrying and getting kids. Nothing says "I'm free to make them choices" like a family and a few kids who are relying on your weekly paycheck.

The only false options in real life would be, like, flying or shooting magic from your fingertips.

False options are the ones that are sorta there, but you can never pick them for the above mentioned reasons.

 

[Sarvis]

A very popular misconception. Your choices are limited by many other factors including previously made choices like chosing a career, spending money on something, or even marrying and getting kids. Nothing says "I'm free to make them choices" like a family and a few kids who are relying on your weekly paycheck.

So then you've never heard of deadbeat dads?

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[Vault Dweller]

One more time: " if the situation demanded such an option, that would be a different story, in which case such an option would become realistically available".

Just wanting to wouldn't qualify?

Not for me. If it doesn't fit the logic of a situation, it doesn't belong, imo. Giving an option to hit a boss to a career-oriented guy is as stupid as giving a knight who's saving the world an option to kill himself "just because". Neither would use it, so what's the point?

Oh come on, you guys use games I haven't played against me all the time!

Life's not fair :wink:

Well, you could be strapped into an electric chair waiting for your execution. Unless you're James Bond you prety much only have one option...

That's not an equivalent of a quest, that's an outcome, consequences of your previous, and obviosuly wrong choices. If you rewind and put that guy in a situation before the arrest or even in prison before the execution, some other options could be found.

Yes, and that is quite different than simply not having that choice in your list of options.

But it doesn't exist for you anymore. Ever since the promotion was mentioned, this option was gone from your list. You'd rather chew your fist of death off before it connects with your boss' face than lose your chance to step up.

In fact, for it to be true roleplaying you would need to be able to punch your boss, get arrested and go to jail for some time... playing out some portion of the game as a prisoner.

Why?

False dichotimize much? You want to hear yes, which is correct, and then claim victory because OBVIOUSLY if your real life options are limited to any amount (say 5 hundred billion) then it's the same thing if you only have 7 options.

So the answer is yes, but that only creates an absurdity.

Fair enough, I should have phrased it better. So, 5 hundred billion, huh? That's a lotta options. Ok, I've listed mine at the beginning of this discussion, what are yours? Same situation: mid-day, you are at work, what are your options? Let's not go crazy and list "I can get a pizza, or a sub, or sushi, etc". Let's also list options that you would actually consider using, so no hitting your boss/raping your coworker either.

Yes, and? <b>My goals</b>, based on <b>my desires</b> guide me towards making certain decisions. You are saying that the Developer provided goals, based on the developer provided desires are the same thing. They are not.

Really? Did you choose your field whatever it is (accounting?) because you really love this shit or because that was your best chance and one of the few available options?

Here is how I see it:

First, you, a person with goals and desires. Let's say that you desire, to make it simple, to make games. Seems like it's all up to you and your decisions are unpredictable.

Second, industry. There are few, maybe 3 or 4 ways to get into the industry. Which ones you'd choose is irrelevant, what's important is that for you to get what you want you must pick the right option. Now, if you want to be a game developer who's actually making money, there are even less options available.

So, the moral of the story is that while your goals and desires might create the illusion of many options, it's the setting and the situation that define and thus limit your options.

That what you think of as the only logical options are not.

And once again: "One more time: " if the situation demanded such an option, that would be a different story, in which case such an option would become realistically available".

Which fits perfectly fine with my overall claim that you cannot roleplay in a video game.

Yes, because you can not play a wizard or a pirate in Fallout.

What if I wanted to roleplay an Idiot Savant like Rain Man?

So yes.

If that character fits the setting and can progress through the game, why not? If he doesn't and you want to have a few idiotic options for your amusement, then it's silly.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Final Fantasy games tend to be very, very strong on plot. I found Fallout's plot to be pretty weak... it was basically just a large FedEx quest.

A game doesn't have to include pointless romances and horribly overwrought and idiotic villians to be "strong on plot". Fallout's plot was reasonable and plausible, which definitely helped immerse in the game. When I finished Final Fantasy X, I just went "What the fuck?" because I was left with a bullshit ending to a horribly contrived and utterly pretentious story line. Sorry, time-travelling underwater soccer player dads != deep.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A very popular misconception. Your choices are limited by many other factors including previously made choices like chosing a career, spending money on something, or even marrying and getting kids. Nothing says "I'm free to make them choices" like a family and a few kids who are relying on your weekly paycheck.

So then you've never heard of deadbeat dads?

My ex-boss was a deadbeat dad. Got divorsed, was ordered to pay a lot of money to his ex-wife, had to sell his share in the company, and had to move to South America to avoid paying the bitch, according to him, of course, anything. A lotta forced choices, imo.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What I'm saying is that it does affect the game world, but it doesn't affect your life.

Never argued against that.

I'm not saying that there should be wizards in Fallout, or machine guns in Zelda, but you should be able to punch your respective bosses and play out the in-game consequences.

Well, I've never said that there shouldn't be boss-punching in games. That was just an example of a real life sitiation where your seemingly endless options are limited.

 

[EvoG]

Its interesting. I actually agree with a lot of what those so-called 'kids' were talking about. This has been the one push with my game designs, separating the "clinical" aspect of roleplaying such as the character sheet and inventory model in conventional RPGs, with the more active reactive roleplaying ironically evident in GTA San An. I know I've brought this up before, but it is a perfect example of roleplaying a character without actively 'arranging' for his development by adding experience points, but of course by doing (or not doing) activities that can increase your characters capabilities.

One thing that was almost cathartic, was the sense of not being on a "quest/mission", and being able to get into the idea of being this avatar on screen, and still having something to do. So I'd mentally plan and prepare to hit the gym, get something to eat and take the girlfriend on a date (prior to finding out it really does nothing for the story but only serves to unlock a two player mode ). Aside from the GF, those other activities rewarded me so the compulsion to do them was greater. I'd do all this while almost subconciously parking my car in the proper places as if parking a virtual car properly in a virtual city had a virtual consequence (which it of course doesn't). This extends exclusively throughout any gameplay context. If you want the player to participate more with the gameworld and feel more intimately tied to his alter-ego, offering these seemingly mundane elements to the game then rewarding the player makes them substantial and less ridiculous. Eating in a game, like old school Ultima, was a product of keeping the player alive...a terrible motivation, as its like perpetual poison without a permanent antidote. Eating in GTA is rewarded by allowing your character to keep his well earned muscle and fitness, but is not mandatory. I was more compelled to eat in GTA for the benefits of doing so then the arbitrary mandate to eat in Ultima.

I know I've said this as well before, but it IS ironic how much more of a roleplaying game GTA SA is over most so-called "pure" RPG's. My point isn't sell GTA, but rather the model. I'd MUCH rather see this open infrastructure in a fantasy or high science fiction setting, which would be an amazing experience.

 

[Sarvis]

Not for me. If it doesn't fit the logic of a situation, it doesn't belong, imo. Giving an option to hit a boss to a career-oriented guy is as stupid as giving a knight who's saving the world an option to kill himself "just because". Neither would use it, so what's the point?

So it's the developers job now to decide what kind of character the player wants to play? Sounds very Final Fantasy to me!

Sorry, but this is your main problem. You think it's ok to force the player into a role, and into a goal. You think that is roleplaying... yet you argue against a game being an RPG if they do that!

I should have the option to hit my boss because <i>I might not play a career oriented character.</i> I should have the option to commit suicide because I might be playing a Samurai type character who becomes dishonored.

If I can only try to walk the path of a character YOU chose, YOU wrote the dialog for, and YOU decided the actions for then how the FUCK am I roleplaying?

That's not an equivalent of a quest, that's an outcome, consequences of your previous, and obviosuly wrong choices. If you rewind and put that guy in a situation before the arrest or even in prison before the execution, some other options could be found.

You didn't say quest, you said you couldn't think of a situation in which you'd only have one option.

But it doesn't exist for you anymore. Ever since the promotion was mentioned, this option was gone from your list. You'd rather chew your fist of death off before it connects with your boss' face than lose your chance to step up.

Only if I'm playing the character YOU think I should be playing. If I'm playing my own character, where <b>I</b> create his actions then maybe I don't want the promotion. I have had jobs where I didn't want to get promoted before.

In fact, for it to be true roleplaying you would need to be able to punch your boss, get arrested and go to jail for some time... playing out some portion of the game as a prisoner.

Why?

The same reason you can choose not to find the water chip in fallout. So that I can roleplay a character, so that his choices can matter, so that his actions have consequences. You deride Fable because being evil doesn't result in any meaningful impact, and at thesame time claim that characters shouldn't be able to choose actions which might land them in prison?

Make up your mind.

Fair enough, I should have phrased it better. So, 5 hundred billion, huh? That's a lotta options. Ok, I've listed mine at the beginning of this discussion, what are yours? Same situation: mid-day, you are at work, what are your options? Let's not go crazy and list "I can get a pizza, or a sub, or sushi, etc". Let's also list options that you would actually consider using, so no hitting your boss/raping your coworker either.

So you want me to list all the options I can think of, except for the ones you disapprove of? Isn't that where we started? Oh well, to answer your challenge... how many websites are there in the world? I could probably come up with a few hundred thousand options at least just based on that. Maybe I get bored with my life and sick of my job so I empty my bank account, drive to Vegas and try to be a professional gambler. (Yes yes, to you visiting websites condenses down to one option... but some of us can see how individual actions can result in different outcomes. For instance if you had decided to look at porn instead of checking the Codex earlier, neither of us would have wasted all this time on this discussion today!)

Really? Did you choose your field whatever it is (accounting?) because you really love this shit or because that was your best chance and one of the few available options?

Here is how I see it:

First, you, a person with goals and desires. Let's say that you desire, to make it simple, to make games. Seems like it's all up to you and your decisions are unpredictable.

Second, industry. There are few, maybe 3 or 4 ways to get into the industry. Which ones you'd choose is irrelevant, what's important is that for you to get what you want you must pick the right option. Now, if you want to be a game developer who's actually making money, there are even less options available.

So why should I be denied the option to be an unprofitable game developer who creates games the way I want them rather than the way they are profitable? IF this life were a Vault Dweller game then Geneforge would probably not exist! Neither would Age of Decadence! It's pretty funny that if you made a game about becoming a game dev you you couldn't even roleplay yourself...

So, the moral of the story is that while your goals and desires might create the illusion of many options, it's the setting and the situation that define and thus limit your options.

Just because an option is doomed to failur doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Hell, why should I be able to try becoming a game developer, fail because I chose the wrong options and then move on to some other goal?

And once again: "One more time: " if the situation demanded such an option, that would be a different story, in which case such an option would become realistically available".

The only limitations should be "physical" limitations, such as not being able to lift a car over your head or being able to afford spending a million dollars. Everything that could be possible should be an option. Hell, even buying something for a million dollars should be a possibility since the character might find a way to obtain that much money! Any limitations should stem naturally from the game system, not from someone deciding what is a logical decision.

Yes, because you can not play a wizard or a pirate in Fallout.

There is no magic and no large bodies of water in the setting of the game. See how those limitations stem naturally from the game system? But you are saying that it's fine, even though you can only play three kinds of characters. Why shouldn't you be able to become a cop in the game? Or settle down and raise a family in that first town? Or start your own crime organization, havig your lackey's do all the work searching for that water chip while slowly taking over the region?

None of those would be limited by the game system, but they are not possible because people didn't put those options in the list.

If that character fits the setting and can progress through the game, why not? If he doesn't and you want to have a few idiotic options for your amusement, then it's silly.

So then the character MUST progress through the game the way the developer wants him to? So yeah, again you just described Final Fantasy.

EDIT:

My ex-boss was a deadbeat dad. Got divorsed, was ordered to pay a lot of money to his ex-wife, had to sell his share in the company, and had to move to South America to avoid paying the bitch, according to him, of course, anything. A lotta forced choices, imo.

Ok, but he apparently got away with it then right? Many more deadbeat dads get away with it easily. Hell my dad never paid child support!


EDIT2:

A game doesn't have to include pointless romances and horribly overwrought and idiotic villians to be "strong on plot". Fallout's plot was reasonable and plausible, which definitely helped immerse in the game. When I finished Final Fantasy X, I just went "What the fuck?" because I was left with a bullshit ending to a horribly contrived and utterly pretentious story line. Sorry, time-travelling underwater soccer player dads != deep.

I didn't say it was a good story, I said it had a strong plot. Fallout does not. Reasonable maybe, if your goal is to allow the player to screw around a lot... which it probably was. But not strong.

The problem is to create a strong plot in a game where the player can affect that plot, you essentially need a different plot for every possible branch the player can go down... which becomes a lot of work.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Your character should have the option to do what you want them to because you should decide who your character is going to be. That's role-playing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not for me. If it doesn't fit the logic of a situation, it doesn't belong, imo. Giving an option to hit a boss to a career-oriented guy is as stupid as giving a knight who's saving the world an option to kill himself "just because". Neither would use it, so what's the point?

So it's the developers job now to decide what kind of character the player wants to play? Sounds very Final Fantasy to me!

Not what kinda characters you want to play, but what kinda characters fit the story and the setting. I mean, it's pointless and rather stupid to give players an option to play a storeowner in Fallout or BG, trading goods all day. I doubt that that would fly in PnP either.

Sorry, but this is your main problem. You think it's ok to force the player into a role, and into a goal. You think that is roleplaying... yet you argue against a game being an RPG if they do that!

The way I see it, a game presents a certain sitiuation, and that situation, not the designer, asks for certain characters with certain goals. A good game gives a variety of character choices within that range of acceptable characters and a variety of goals within the acceptable range of goals. For example, Fallout requires characters willing to explore the wasteland and deal with the mutants vs the ones who'd be interested in marrying Tandi and opening up a strip joint in Shady Sands because that's not what the game is about.

Similarly, when you are offered a position in real life, you are not complaining about limited choices and don't ask about opening up a small office supplies store in the lobby instead of sticking with the role of an accountant they have for you.

I should have the option to hit my boss because <i>I might not play a career oriented character.</i> I should have the option to commit suicide because I might be playing a Samurai type character who becomes dishonored.

Once again, if the setting and the situation support it, by all fucking means, kill your character. If you are playing Fallout, it doesn't have a place for a samurai or honor, and killing yourself doesn't progress the main plot or affect the game.

If I can only try to walk the path of a character YOU chose, YOU wrote the dialog for, and YOU decided the actions for then how the FUCK am I roleplaying?

I think we went through that before, but let's try that again. You need to pass through a gate. A gate is guarded during the day, locked during the night, a pass will get you through. Your options are:

1. Kill the guards
2. Sneak
3. Talk your way through
4. Steal the key
5. Acquire a pass (steal, buy, forge)
6. Lockpick
7. Climb the wall

That's it. I'm pretty sure that that's 90% of all possible options. Yes, I chose the situation, I made the rules, but the rest is up to you, and if you are willing to play that game, you get all the options you need to role-play all kinda characters.

Only if I'm playing the character YOU think I should be playing. If I'm playing my own character, where <b>I</b> create his actions then maybe I don't want the promotion. I have had jobs where I didn't want to get promoted before.

Didn't want or wasn't offered?

The same reason you can choose not to find the water chip in fallout. So that I can roleplay a character, so that his choices can matter, so that his actions have consequences. You deride Fable because being evil doesn't result in any meaningful impact, and at thesame time claim that characters shouldn't be able to choose actions which might land them in prison?

Make up your mind.

I claimed that? Where?

So you want me to list all the options I can think of, except for the ones you disapprove of? Isn't that where we started? Oh well, to answer your challenge... how many websites are there in the world?

You are calling those meaningful options?

For instance if you had decided to look at porn instead of checking the Codex earlier, neither of us would have wasted all this time on this discussion today!)

How does that affect my life? Instead of wasting a few hours on chatting with people in the office, I waste them on chatting with people at the Codex. Same shit.

So why should I be denied the option to be an unprofitable game developer who creates games the way I want them rather than the way they are profitable? IF this life were a Vault Dweller game then Geneforge would probably not exist! Neither would Age of Decadence! It's pretty funny that if you made a game about becoming a game dev you you couldn't even roleplay yourself...

Sarvis, Sarvis. You really like to assume stuff. Being an indie developer IS one of the options, and I specifically mentioned that if you want to actually make money, there are even fewer choices.

There is no magic and no large bodies of water in the setting of the game. See how those limitations stem naturally from the game system?

From the setting and the situation, not game system.

Why shouldn't you be able to become a cop in the game? Or settle down and raise a family in that first town? Or start your own crime organization, havig your lackey's do all the work searching for that water chip while slowly taking over the region?

None of those would be limited by the game system, but they are not possible because people didn't put those options in the list.

No, they are not possible because they aren't logical. Just like with the pirate thing (btw, I don't know if you are aware but there's plenty of "large bodies of water" around the States). Settling down wouldn't have dealt with the situation presented by the game, and neither would starting your own crime organization. It's a fucking wasteland, for fuck's sake.

So then the character MUST progress through the game the way the developer wants him to? So yeah, again you just described Final Fantasy.

No, see above (the gate thing).

Ok, but he apparently got away with it then right?

He didn't have the same choices as his partner, and that's the point. His previous choices, the situation, and the rules of the setting have influenced and limited his choices.

 

[Sarvis]

Not what kinda characters you want to play, but what kinda characters fit the story and the setting. I mean, it's pointless and rather stupid to give players an option to play a storeowner in Fallout or BG, trading goods all day. I doubt that that would fly in PnP either.

Maybe if you have a shitty DM who forces you along a narrow path it wouldn't work.

The way I see it, a game presents a certain sitiuation, and that situation, not the designer, asks for certain characters with certain goals. A good game gives a variety of character choices within that range of acceptable characters and a variety of goals within the acceptable range of goals. For example, Fallout requires characters willing to explore the wasteland and deal with the mutants vs the ones who'd be interested in marrying Tandi and opening up a strip joint in Shady Sands because that's not what the game is about.

Why should the game REQUIRE anything unless you are in a situation where you are being hunted or something? Why can't I play a Neitzchean type character who just sends a message back to the vault saying the surface is livable, and anyone who doesn't leave the vault to live on land is too weak to survive. No reason at all. Except that the designers didn't want to present that kind of option.

Similarly, when you are offered a position in real life, you are not complaining about limited choices and don't ask about opening up a small office supplies store in the lobby instead of sticking with the role of an accountant they have for you.

So no one has ever gotten sick of their job and opened up a small business instead? You should have told Bush, it seemed to be the key aspect of his jobs plan last November!

Once again, if the setting and the situation support it, by all fucking means, kill your character. If you are playing Fallout, it doesn't have a place for a samurai or honor, and killing yourself doesn't progress the main plot or affect the game.

True, but so what?

I think we went through that before, but let's try that again. You need to pass through a gate. A gate is guarded during the day, locked during the night, a pass will get you through. Your options are:

1. Kill the guards
2. Sneak
3. Talk your way through
4. Steal the key
5. Acquire a pass (steal, buy, forge)
6. Lockpick
7. Climb the wall

That's it. I'm pretty sure that that's 90% of all possible options. Yes, I chose the situation, I made the rules, but the rest is up to you, and if you are willing to play that game, you get all the options you need to role-play all kinda characters.

Actually you can roleplay two characters... a rogue or a warrior. Ok, I'll even give you diplomat since they CAN be seperate from rogues in a non-D&D system.

But come on, the Witcher game showed more options for that situation in their demo movie!

Didn't want or wasn't offered?

Didn't want.

I claimed that? Where?

Probably in your previous post somewhere. Pretty sure you said that getting your character arrested or having them commit suicide would be pointless options. ONly got 5 minutes before I need to start working though so not taking the time to look it up atm.

You are calling those meaningful options?

If you read the rest of the paragraph...

How does that affect my life? Instead of wasting a few hours on chatting with people in the office, I waste them on chatting with people at the Codex. Same shit.

Oh I see, the ONLY choices that should be available are ones that have dramatic impact on your life. Unless they mean getting arrested or dying.

So why should I be denied the option to be an unprofitable game developer who creates games the way I want them rather than the way they are profitable? IF this life were a Vault Dweller game then Geneforge would probably not exist! Neither would Age of Decadence! It's pretty funny that if you made a game about becoming a game dev you you couldn't even roleplay yourself...

Sarvis, Sarvis. You really like to assume stuff. Being an indie developer IS one of the options, and I specifically mentioned that if you want to actually make money, there are even fewer choices.

Well, sorry but the goal of the game of life is to make lots of money. That's why I have to be career oriented and seek that promotion right?

From the setting and the situation, not game system.

Yes, and? NOT from the developer making an arbitrary list.

No, they are not possible because they aren't logical. Just like with the pirate thing (btw, I don't know if you are aware but there's plenty of "large bodies of water" around the States).

Not in Fallout there aren't. Another choice they take away from you is to travel outside the game's area. Why couldn't I just go north across the desert or whatever looking for a water chip? Why do I HAVE to go east and south just because that's where the developer decided to define the map?

Settling down wouldn't have dealt with the situation presented by the game, and neither would starting your own crime organization. It's a fucking wasteland, for fuck's sake.

I fucking explained how a crime organization would help. You fucking have the fucking henchmen look for fucking water chips for you.

There, did we use the word "fuck" enough yet?

No, see above (the gate thing).

So as long as you can play one of three characters who are on their own rails you can call it roleplaying? Bullshit. If you play the same type of character twice you would have the same game both times, and it would be just like final fantasy. Being able to choose between two or three character types, then following their paths is no better than having one character unless you play the game through three times.

He didn't have the same choices as his partner, and that's the point. His previous choices, the situation, and the rules of the setting have influenced and limited his choices.

But in your game, going to Venezuala probably wouldn't have been an option right? That wouldn't be a logical choice would it?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe if you have a shitty DM who forces you along a narrow path it wouldn't work.

What would be the point of opening up a store in a PnP game while the rest of the players go on a quest or explore a dungeon? To make a statement that you can?

Why should the game REQUIRE anything unless you are in a situation where you are being hunted or something? Why can't I play a Neitzchean type character who just sends a message back to the vault saying the surface is livable, and anyone who doesn't leave the vault to live on land is too weak to survive. No reason at all. Except that the designers didn't want to present that kind of option.

Why would they? No, seriously? You are playing a game that has a story and goals. If you don't like to follow the story, than you are playing the wrong game - get MW or a MMORPG where you can just hang around doing nothing but punching people who walks nearby.

So no one has ever gotten sick of their job and opened up a small business instead? You should have told Bush, it seemed to be the key aspect of his jobs plan last November!

That's the equivalent of uninstalling PST and getting a MMORPG, that's the choice that's always with you. My point was that when you are offered a job, you are offered one position with duties already defined. If you like it, you accept it, if not, you go and look for something else. Same with games. You get what you want. If you like trading games, you get a trading game. You don't expect to save the world from someone or something, because that's not what the game is about. You only hope that the game gives you enough trading options to play as you want.

Once again, if the setting and the situation support it, by all fucking means, kill your character. If you are playing Fallout, it doesn't have a place for a samurai or honor, and killing yourself doesn't progress the main plot or affect the game.

True, but so what?

So, there is no need to provide such an option just like there is no need to provide an option to battle aliens in space because that's not that kinda game

Actually you can roleplay two characters... a rogue or a warrior. Ok, I'll even give you diplomat since they CAN be seperate from rogues in a non-D&D system.

But come on, the Witcher game showed more options for that situation in their demo movie!

Can you list them? As for your reply, before you were talking about being able to do anything, and even listed all the possible websites as individual choices. Why grouping all the actions now then? Why not go even further and play one character called Teh Gate Passer? Nice try.

I claimed that? Where?

Probably in your previous post somewhere. Pretty sure you said that getting your character arrested or having them commit suicide would be pointless options.

Well, commiting suicide is pointless as it ends the game in most cases, getting arrested isn't.

ONly got 5 minutes before I need to start working though...

What happened with all the gazillion of choices? Looks like the only choice now is get back to work.

Oh I see, the ONLY choices that should be available are ones that have dramatic impact on your life. Unless they mean getting arrested or dying.

Not dramatic, but some impacts. Providing a choice between reading Morning Star and Morning Sun in a game is a waste of time unless the game is aimed at anal-retentive audience.

Well, sorry but the goal of the game of life is to make lots of money. That's why I have to be career oriented and seek that promotion right?

Depends on a game, doesn't it?

Yes, and? NOT from the developer making an arbitrary list.

If the setting and the situation are logical, the list is defined by them, not by developers who are making some shit up.

Not in Fallout there aren't. Another choice they take away from you is to travel outside the game's area. Why couldn't I just go north across the desert or whatever looking for a water chip? Why do I HAVE to go east and south just because that's where the developer decided to define the map?

That's the story. The story guides and tells you the best places to look for a water chip, and considering that water chips aren't household items that could be found elsewhere, I don't really see a reason why anyone would go north.

I fucking explained how a crime organization would help. You fucking have the fucking henchmen look for fucking water chips for you.

There, did we use the word "fuck" enough yet?

No, you missed the spot before "crime organization". Or between crime and organization, but that's a matter of taste.

Anyway, that crime organization doesn't fit for many reasons. Doesn't fit the setting, lack of motivation for the henchmen to look for the chip, lack of motivation for you to care about the chip since you are all busy running that organization, etc

So as long as you can play one of three characters who are on their own rails you can call it roleplaying? Bullshit. If you play the same type of character twice you would have the same game both times, and it would be just like final fantasy. Being able to choose between two or three character types, then following their paths is no better than having one character unless you play the game through three times.

Ok, thief's ways:

1) steal the key
2) steal the pass (different NPCs would carry the pass and the key, obviously)
3) sneak
4) climb the wall
5) pick the lock

Diplomat's:

1) Talk his way through without the pass
2) Convince the NPC with the pass to give it to him

Fighter's:

1) Fight his way through
2) Kill the guy with the key
3) Kill the guy with the pass

Needless to say, in a skill-based system, more options are available to all characters, i.e. a fighter can climb the wall, etc. So, it's far from there are 3 options, one for each character scenario

But in your game, going to Venezuala probably wouldn't have been an option right? That wouldn't be a logical choice would it?

Depends on what the game is all about. If the game is about developing a business, then no, because he's left that game.