Understanding Roleplaying - The Easy Guide For Dumbfucks

It's amazing how much apparently intelligent dumbfucks don't know what roleplaying truly means. The dumbfuckery of misconceptions never ends but i will only list the most common:

1) It has stats doesn't it then it's a roleplaying game.
2) Role-playing is playing a role, it's explained in the dictionary.
3) In my PNP sessions the DM always tells me what to do and he is also screwing my sister.

Ok so heres a small and streamlined metaphor to help dumbfucks understand the feeling of roleplaying. The metaphor i'm going to use is that of creating a painting. An rpg is like an empty canvas, usually the canvas is not completely blank but there is a background already drawn as an initial sketch, that is onçy a rough sketch and devoided of meaning. This is what the roleplayer, in this case the painter, will add to the canvas.

Comparable to the painter tools are the roleplaying tools. The colors, the palette, the different brushes in this case translate into personal skills, attributes and perks; affiliations; reactions; reputation that will be used trough a variety of roleplaying opportunities capable of creating distinctive traces in the world canvas.

A game can be a bad rpg for many reasons. There's not enough colors and brushes which translates in a deficit of roleplaying opportunities.

The canvas sketch does not allow for freedom of expression. This happens in role-propelled games when the story is already laid out and roles have already been played in a rigid way for the most important decisions that would create any significant change on the world canvas.

Some dumbfucks will say you can't create such a game despite the fact that such a game was already been created more than once. Which is one of the reasons why they are dumbfucks in the first place.

Probably the best example of this is Fallout. In this game the player actions can shape the Fallout world canvas. Cities can raise and prosper while other cities can decline and fall. It's the player role to shape the destiny of the wastelands but how this will happen depends on the player character.

There's a main-quest to give a linking goal to the land but this main quest only serves the purpose of giving some background to the world canvas. The main quest goal is a vulgar save the world which is convenient for it's purpose. Of course there's no way to change the ending of the main quest but that isn't important because this is just the main quest.

A bad example of a roleplaying game is DeusEx. It's no doubt a great game and a fascinating game but it plays like an action adventure game. The players role is propelled trough a pre-determined path and there's little the player can do to create a significantly different story.

To understand why DeusEx is a bad roleplaying game you (the innocent dumbfuck) have to understand the difference between rpg tools and the result of their correct application to create a world where the player has freedom of expression to finish the world canvas and create a character.

It's usualy said that when we paint a color we are also painting the colors around that brush stroke and this is also true with rpgs when we create a character the world where that character lives is also part of him.

This is a guide to dumbfucks and it already has too much text, but one last word about hyping.

Fallout was hyped as a game where the player had an important role in changing the destiny of the wastelands and that was not only referring to saving the world in the main but every village, city or "zone" where the player has been could be changed.

You're an idiot.

I must object to your metaphor of canvas sketch. Saying canvas sketch alone doesn't mean much. It might be a better metaphor to give reproduction of an existing work of art as an example. E.g. you have to choose from a very limited number of paintings to reproduce in games like Deus Ex.

So I have to decide whether I roleplay like Rembrandt, Picasso or Pollock? Colorful choices indeed...

claudius the god said:

You're an idiot.

Click to expand...

You must know. You've proven your expertise on the subject of being an idiot time and again.

Is there an English version of this somewhere, or perhaps a reader's digest version that doesn't rely on bad metaphors and games I've never played?

Sounds like another "Fallout is the only real rpg ever made" thread at a glance

he also prattles on about why deus ex sucks.

it was riveting... well... i didn't actually read it but the word did jump out at me. booker prize for this muthafucka.

badly written... bad metaphor, very blurry and indirect points. I thought you were writing a parody.. but even then it's not funny.

Amasius said:

So I have to decide whether I roleplay like Rembrandt, Picasso or Pollock? Colorful choices indeed...

Click to expand...

Definitely Pollock for me. Vast fields of blue smeared in red gore.

"badly written... bad metaphor, very blurry and indirect points. I thought you were writing a parody.. but even then it's not funny."

Very weak feedback without any sort of argumentation. By the way people use caps to start sentences.

"So I have to decide whether I roleplay like Rembrandt, Picasso or Pollock? Colorful choices indeed..."

It's supposed to be a metaphor.

"Is there an English version of this somewhere, or perhaps a reader's digest version that doesn't rely on bad metaphors and games I've never played?"

Why is the metaphor bad? Can you build any debatable or constructive criticism on that?

"Sounds like another "Fallout is the only real rpg ever made" thread at a glance Rolling Eyes"

I mentioned Fallout as an example. In fact to me is the best example but it doesn't make it the only one. Because that's what the word example means in English. lol

If you disagree that the player must have some creative freedom to build a character, follow is own objectives and shape the world according to his moral choices and that this has more weight in an rpg than a plot then why do you disagree with Volourn, when he says that Neverwinter Nights is an rpg? Your reasoning does not make any sense.

__

By that metaphor, you could say Spore will be an excellent RPG.

The narrow definition of "RPG= stats" may be narrow and inexplicit, but it contains a bit of truth. In bare form, the only thing that seperates an CRPG from an Adventure or a Strategy (CRPGs can have parties to up to 10 members, so basicly you control your mini army) are statistics. Adventure games and Text Adventures contain more chooices then any CRPG ever made, while the chooices in open-ended strategy games have game shaping conscequences that can literaly change the map, politics and outcome of the map of Europe, Japan, Mediterania or the whole World!

I agree the CRPGs are more than just about stats, but in bare and narrow form, they are represented by stats.

PS: next time get some sleep before writting something this big, it was somewhat hard to organise everything you sead, but thanks for sharing it.

mister lamat said:

he also prattles on about why deus ex sucks.

Click to expand...

bad roleplaying /= sucks

Besides, I remember elander telling me in a thread that he likes... loves Deus Ex.

"A bad example of a roleplaying game is DeusEx. It's no doubt a great game and a fascinating game but it plays like an action adventure game. The players role is propelled trough a pre-determined path and there's little the player can do to create a significantly different story. "

That's what i said. Still you can enjoy a game and disagree with it's label.

"By that metaphor, you could say Spore will be an excellent RPG."

Metaphors are never that accurate say what something is or isn't.

Spore doesn't have a character but in World of Warcraft for example you play a character thus it is called an RPG. Still WoW doesn't feel or play like an rpg.

__

I can't tell if Woetohice is being serious there but judging from that one post alone, I'd suggest an immediate dumbfucking.

I am sorry but I have to step in.

Adventure games rarely offer meaning full choices, adventure games are usually puzzles games.

Main difference of RPGs and adventure games is as a action on a adventure game is always possible/impossible the same is not true in RPGs were possible success depend on variables.

A common error is using the world "role playing" to its basics, any game is a role playing game since you are playing a role but role playing game is a game were the role is not dictated by a strict success/failure formula.

The clasic mistake of confusing a word with the genre isn't just atached to CRPGs.

Adventure - "Every game can be considered an Adventure because it takes you on an adventure"

Simulation - "Every game can be considered a Simulation because it simulates a scenario"

Strategy - "Every game can be considered a Strategy game, because you have to use a strategy when blasting your way through the baddies in Quake"

RPG - "Every game is an roleplaying game because you play a role"

I realy don't know when people started making this kind mistake, back in the early 2000, I didn't know any one who would confuse the word with the genre or justify the RPG title with "You play a role".

Variables and formulas are tools to create role-playing. We can still make a game that is not dictated by strict possibilities and still be only related to combat for example. It's the scope of the game that fails in this case.

But from my point of view a game can only be build in two ways in relation to plot and role-playing. A game that is created focusing it's design on choices and consequences and in this case if there is a main plot is only to create some background and not as the bulk of the game. A game that is focused in one or more branching and complex plots the player has to follow. In this case important moral, ethical and strategical decisions are imposed to the player to convey the plot that was created. There's no other way. A designer either focus on roleplay or focus on the plot and that is more important than stats or everything else. It 's the feeling that we have full control on the important decisions in the game and that this character we are playing is truly ours.

I hear the argument that for the Codex theres only one rpg that is Fallout. How many games have been made with the purpose and true intention to create a game for the player to roleplay a character of his choice? I can count with the fingers of one hand the number of rpgs that were truly designed for role-playing.

Aren't most games called rpgs, tactical combat games or in the case of action hybrids, highly customizable FPS with a story and some dialog? Some games provide isolated scenarios for role-playing but the main focus is still on the plot and all the important decisions are stolen away from the player. How can we feel we are playing OUR character if not even our decisions are truly our own?

This is the main point on the Fallout case. The quality of it's dialogs, TB system, complex world, skills and interaction ways would all be wasted if the game was made to convey a certain plot.


"LOL nub. I hav a lvl70 warrior in tier 9 epix bitch. I know my role in raids is tank, so I tank. Priests roles are healers. Except sum of them don't play that role sometimez and heal me like tehy suppozed and think tehy can fight LOL then they die and I die..stoopid Priests.
Every1 has a role to play. Only noobs don't play they're role tehy supozed to. Therefore, it's a ROLE-playing game. Nub."

Yeaah

So, by this method we could call Deus Ex a "Perfect RPG" because we can "Paint the game world"?

Some freaky shit you have going on there.

Romanian_Dude2005 said:

The narrow definition of "RPG= stats" may be narrow and inexplicit, but it contains a bit of truth.

Click to expand...

A "bit" as in "not the whole" truth? Well done.

In bare form, the only thing that seperates an CRPG from an Adventure or a Strategy (CRPGs can have parties to up to 10 members, so basicly you control your mini army) are statistics.

Click to expand...

Actually, statistics are an excellent example of what doesn't seperate a CRPG from a strategy game. Moreover, your comment in parentheses makes it look like a textbook example of doublethink.

Adventure games and Text Adventures contain more chooices then any CRPG ever made,

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Most Adventures I know are essentially puzzle games. That includes text adventures.

I agree the CRPGs are more than just about stats, but in bare and narrow form, they are represented by stats.

Click to expand...

If by "narrow" you mean "narrow-minded" you are absolutely correct. Thankfully more and more action games incorporate "RPG-elements" so it should soon be impossible to cite stats as indicative of an RPG.
I kid myself. Even when 95% of all games were to use them, people would still insist that stats are a typical RPG element. The irony is so sweet, I could almost enjoy the situation: Nearly all games have stats, but there are no RPGs.

Wait, the DM's screwing my sister?

I don't think the metaphor's that bad, really, but Fallout's incredibly limited compared to painting on a canvas that has an initial background already sketched. Still, the idea of having different brushes and palettes to choose from is nice. Too many games are like coloring book pages - the player is free to use alternate colors, but the choices are mainly cosmetic.

Too many games are like coloring book pages - the player is free to use alternate colors, but the choices are mainly cosmetic.

Click to expand...

Now that's a nice metaphor.. until someone comes up with the symbology and meaning behind the colours

I think the phrase "Role Playing" needs to be changed to "Role Creating" - in Arcanum/Fallout etc. you are able to create a wide variety of PCs fitting a wide variety of Roles.
I think you can judge an "RPG" on how many different roles it lets you play - eg.
Arcanum - Diplomat, Technologist (and then which speciality), Magician (and then which speciality), Melee (and good / evil versions) - Good RPG
Fallout - Diplomat, Gunner, Thief, Scientist & combinations. (and good / evil versions) - good RPG
KOTOR - Jedi or Sith - Not a good RPG
Oblivion - Hero - not a good RPG

(this list is not very good, but i think it gets the point across)

That's just semantics. Everyone who knows anything about cRPGs know that role playing in the modern sense of the word is about the ability to a) create a character and b) have that character have an impact on the game world. That's the bare minium. I don't see the need for ANOTHER term to capture what should be widley recognized. Other than that, your list is spot on.