# Computers beat up my role player



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2007)

Can you identify the D&D player who said this?







> As a typically ambitious player, I did what all others of that ilk do: Everything I could do to gain advantage for my PCs and rise in level as rapidly as possible.



I'll give a hint: He is a regular poster to ENWorld. (Technically, that's two hints.)

Quasqueton


----------



## mhensley (Jul 11, 2007)

Col_Pladoh

Did I win?


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2007)

Damn! First response got it. Kudos.

"As a typically ambitious player, I did what all others of that ilk do: Everything I could do to gain advantage for my PCs and rise in level as rapidly as possible."
-- Gary Gygax, Dragon #318

Quasqueton


----------



## mhensley (Jul 11, 2007)

Yep, I figured it had to be the most ironic answer possible.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 11, 2007)

Sounds like the challenge most MMO's have to deal with.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 11, 2007)

That poster obviously doesn't know the first thing about how to play D&D correctly and is having bad wrong fun.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 11, 2007)

Oh, and for a moment I thought it was me. But then again the quote lacked the "... but I especially like stabbing fellow players in the back."


----------



## Crothian (Jul 11, 2007)

I think that part of the quote is just assumed


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2007)

> "... but I especially like stabbing fellow players in the back."






> I was actively playing those characters, often at conventions, and having other players know such information would be an advantage to them, a disadvantage to me, in case of a conflict.
> -- E. Gary Gygax, ENWorld



In answer to why EGG was so unwilling to disclose/publish his characters' stats.

Quasqueton


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 11, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> "As a typically ambitious player, I did what all others of that ilk do: Everything I could do to gain advantage for my PCs and rise in level as rapidly as possible."
> -- Gary Gygax, Dragon #318




How is that remotely "munchkiny".


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 11, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> How is that remotely "munchkiny".




It goes against role-playing.

Just like Inigo Montoya's fighting training was clearly just munchkinism and had nothing to do with character concept.

sarcasm/

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he was advocation "creative misinterpretation" of the rules or raiding poorly balanced splatbooks.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 11, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Oh, and for a moment I thought it was me. But then again the quote lacked the "... but I especially like stabbing fellow players in the back."





			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I think that part of the quote is just assumed




I'm not so sure.  From many of the stories in the various "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" columns I get the impression that they were quite fond of solo adventuring in those days.  No "fellow players" to backstab.

I wonder if this was partially because once they reached higher levels there weren't many other PCs to adventure together.  Combine that with the difficulty in getting a group together, and how common cohorts and hirelings were and you get a lot of solo adventuring.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 12, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> How is that remotely "munchkiny".




Because of the everything part. That includes cheating, extorting the DM, using loaded dice, bribing the DM with money, expensive gifts or sexual favours, and so on   




			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure.  From many of the stories in the various "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" columns I get the impression that they were quite fond of solo adventuring in those days.  No "fellow players" to backstab.
> 
> I wonder if this was partially because once they reached higher levels there weren't many other PCs to adventure together.  Combine that with the difficulty in getting a group together, and how common cohorts and hirelings were and you get a lot of solo adventuring.




I think it was because once he stabbed them all in the back, they were too dead to join any adventures.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jul 12, 2007)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I think it was because once he stabbed them all in the back, they were too dead to join any adventures.




Sounds like the D&D version of the movie _Buried Alive_. Except I'd do it cheaper, grindhouse style. 
_"He betrayed their trust... Now they're back... He killed them for the money...  and now he's going to choke on it!_


----------



## RFisher (Jul 12, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Yep, I figured it had to be the most ironic answer possible.




What is ironic about it?


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> What is ironic about it?




Many people consider 3E to be catering to powergamers and be the source of decline in roleplaying, so it's kinda ironic that the creater of D&D fits that bill too.


----------



## Henry (Jul 12, 2007)

In Forge and Robin Laws-terminology, Gary comes off to me as one of the more "role-play lite" gamers out there. He's in it for the fun, if in-character banter happens, then great, but having fun with it, whether it be puns, crazy traps, deus-ex-machina-yet cool situations, etc. is the primary focus. It's why I like him so much - this very thing influenced my and my friends' play as we were growing up. We had the stupid names and jokes, the power-gamed characters who carried everything from pouches of black pepper to throw off trackers to cut-off medusa heads on sticks to scare monsters with, etc. And if our characters started a game buck naked in the bottom of the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, then that was cool too - we'd never done it before!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 12, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> How is that remotely "munchkiny".




That's what I was thinking.


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> That's what I was thinking.




I'd rather characterize it as _powergaming_, even though munchkins and powergamers both seek to maximize power. They are differentiated by that munchkinism is only found where it's enabled by an incompetent DM. Powergamers operate within the rules, while munchkins seek to bend them to their advantage (and silliness).


----------



## DaveyJones (Jul 12, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Can you identify the D&D player who said this? I'll give a hint: He is a regular poster to ENWorld. (Technically, that's two hints.)




my guess: Quasqueton


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 12, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Many people consider 3E to be catering to powergamers and be the source of decline in roleplaying, so it's kinda ironic that the creater of D&D fits that bill too.




Yeah, the sheer number of people being wrong never ceases to amaze me   .



			
				VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Sounds like the D&D version of the movie _Buried Alive_. Except I'd do it cheaper, grindhouse style.
> _"He betrayed their trust... Now they're back... He killed them for the money...  and now he's going to choke on it!_




Nah. "He betrayed their trust... NOw they're back... He killed them for the money... now he destroys them again and becomes a hero for defeating all those zombies, gaining XP and treasure in the process." This is D&D, after all.


----------



## Dimwhit (Jul 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> In Forge and Robin Laws-terminology, Gary comes off to me as one of the more "role-play lite" gamers out there. He's in it for the fun, if in-character banter happens, then great, but having fun with it, whether it be puns, crazy traps, deus-ex-machina-yet cool situations, etc. is the primary focus. It's why I like him so much - this very thing influenced my and my friends' play as we were growing up. We had the stupid names and jokes, the power-gamed characters who carried everything from pouches of black pepper to throw off trackers to cut-off medusa heads on sticks to scare monsters with, etc. And if our characters started a game buck naked in the bottom of the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, then that was cool too - we'd never done it before!




Amen, brother! I want to take both sides of the 'roleplay vs rollplay' debate and smash their heads together. I'm in it for the fun. If the game is fun, great...be that will in-character banter or hack-n-slashing your way through a dungeon. It's all the same.

The only way the game was 'meant' to be play was to be fun.


----------



## SavageRobby (Jul 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> In Forge and Robin Laws-terminology, Gary comes off to me as one of the more "role-play lite" gamers out there. He's in it for the fun, if in-character banter happens, then great, but having fun with it, whether it be puns, crazy traps, deus-ex-machina-yet cool situations, etc. is the primary focus. It's why I like him so much - this very thing influenced my and my friends' play as we were growing up. We had the stupid names and jokes, the power-gamed characters who carried everything from pouches of black pepper to throw off trackers to cut-off medusa heads on sticks to scare monsters with, etc. And if our characters started a game buck naked in the bottom of the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, then that was cool too - we'd never done it before!




QFT.



Ah, Medusa-on-a-stick. Good times, good times.


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> In Forge and Robin Laws-terminology, Gary comes off to..




Using Forge and Robin Laws terminology on Gary is like using psychoanalysis on Hannibal Lecter . He defies analysis.


----------



## IanB (Jul 12, 2007)

A4 (naked in the dungeon of the Slave Lords) was by Lawrence Schick.


----------



## GAAAHHH (Jul 13, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> A4 (naked in the dungeon of the Slave Lords) was by Lawrence Schick.




Good times.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 13, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Many people consider 3E to be catering to powergamers and be the source of decline in roleplaying, so it's kinda ironic that the creater of D&D fits that bill too.




Hmm.

I always thought it was _because_ Gary was the kind of player to fully exploit every advantage he could find that limited how much he "catered" to "powergamers" as both DM & designer.

Though it seems odd to me that what anyone other than Gary might think about 3e makes a statement by Gary ironic.


----------



## Numion (Jul 13, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Hmm.
> 
> I always thought it was _because_ Gary was the kind of player to fully exploit every advantage he could find that limited how much he "catered" to "powergamers" as both DM & designer.




He did write UA, didn't he?



> Though it seems odd to me that what anyone other than Gary might think about 3e makes a statement by Gary ironic.




Well, it was also Gygax who said that 3E caters to powergamers: "IMO there has been a vast shift in game focus in 3E. The archetype has gone by the board, comic book-like feats are a feature, the whole purpose of play is set on killing things, and *power gaming is encouraged.*"

Emphasis mine. Pretty tough talk from a self-admitted powergamer. 

And ironic


----------



## diaglo (Jul 13, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> He did write UA, didn't he?



imo, he wrote that for his powergaming scions.


----------



## Numion (Jul 13, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> imo, he wrote that for his powergaming scions.




More telling would be to know if he used stuff from it for his own characters.

EGG: "C'mon, my scores suck! Re-roll, c'mon?"
DM: "You know the rule; no re-rolls"
EGG: "Dayum.. whatever, my fighter falls on his sword"
EGG: *goes write UA method IX for stat rolls*


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 13, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> What is ironic about it?




I was going to say that.


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 13, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> More telling would be to know if he used stuff from it for his own characters.
> 
> EGG: "C'mon, my scores suck! Re-roll, c'mon?"
> DM: "You know the rule; no re-rolls"
> ...




(From what I remember in one of the Q&A threads): Originally, abilities where generated by rolling 3d6 in order, as we know. BUT, Col Pladoh's players would simply refuse to play a bad set of stats....so they would roll, and roll, until they got the stats they wanted. Other methods, like the reasonable 4d6 drop one and arrange, and presumably the more exciting UA variant, where born from this.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 13, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> He did write UA, didn't he?




I didn't say he didn't cater to them. He's said himself that he did. I said that he limited how much he did. He could've gone further. In his opinion, 3e _did_ go further.

It's also not unreasonable that his opinions in this matter could have changed between the publication of the UA & the publication of 3e. It seems obvious to me that they have, but not to the extent that the original quote v. his opinion of 3e qualifies as ironic. His change of opinion from _Dangerous Journies_ to _Lejendary Adventures_ is a much bigger shift, & even that is only ironic if you irrationally expect people to never have a change of opinion or taste.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 13, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Using Forge and Robin Laws terminology on Gary is like using psychoanalysis on Hannibal Lecter . He defies analysis.




Very well put.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> (From what I remember in one of the Q&A threads): Originally, abilities where generated by rolling 3d6 in order, as we know. BUT, Col Pladoh's players would simply refuse to play a bad set of stats....so they would roll, and roll, until they got the stats they wanted. Other methods, like the reasonable 4d6 drop one and arrange, and presumably the more exciting UA variant, where born from this.




In other words, just like pretty much every gamer I've ever played with.  



> I didn't say he didn't cater to them. He's said himself that he did. I said that he limited how much he did. He could've gone further. In his opinion, 3e did go further




Ok, I gotta ask.  How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?

You can talk about powergaming in 3e all you like, but, it's a pretty pale shade compared to what went on in the Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, I gotta ask.  How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?




You could increase the modifiers based on ability scores so that a score as low as a 12 gives a +1 & bump an 18 to a +4. While you're raising them, you could drop any difference based on what's being modified, so that that 18 gives you a +4 on everything the ability modifies. Don't forget to give PCs ability score bumps every few levels too. Then you could change the XP progression to be shallower. Then remove the plateau in advancement at name level & just have _everything_ increase linearly up to 20th level. You could give spellcasters a whole bunch of new slots & let them freely fill higher level slots with lower level spells. Blah, blah, blah.

But I don't think following that road any further is going to get us anywhere. Especially since I'm not the one who claimed 3e empowered the power gamers. & while I do love to play devil's advocate, I don't care to argue this one.



> You can talk about powergaming in 3e all you like, but, it's a pretty pale shade compared to what went on in the Unearthed Arcana.




Maybe. Maybe I was wrong, & Gary doesn't think 3e went farther than UA. Maybe his criticism of 3e is based on his experience of making what he now considers mistakes in the UA.


----------



## Numion (Jul 17, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> You could increase the modifiers based on ability scores so that a score as low as a 12 gives a +1 & bump an 18 to a +4. While you're raising them, you could drop any difference based on what's being modified, so that that 18 gives you a +4 on everything the ability modifies. Don't forget to give PCs ability score bumps every few levels too. Then you could change the XP progression to be shallower. Then remove the plateau in advancement at name level & just have _everything_ increase linearly up to 20th level. You could give spellcasters a whole bunch of new slots & let them freely fill higher level slots with lower level spells. Blah, blah, blah.




Yes, 3E increased everything. Unlike UA, also the challenges the PCs face. The fact how many extra hit points certain CON figure gives in 3E vs. 1E is irrelevant if you don't consider how the damage dealing elements also changed. 

UA made the PCs more powerful without altering their opposition, that's munchkin. 3E made the characters more powerful compared to 1E, but also made the monsters doubly so.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 17, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> You could increase the modifiers based on ability scores so that a score as low as a 12 gives a +1 & bump an 18 to a +4. While you're raising them, you could drop any difference based on what's being modified, so that that 18 gives you a +4 on everything the ability modifies.



Yeah, but now stats of 9 or lower give you a penalty, which they didn't before. 3e ability modifiers are not power creep, they're a way of making the full range of ability scores matter, not merely the extremes.

Advancement in 3e isn't any faster, as Quasqueton's analysis of old modules has proven, it's just that in 1e a lot of people houseruled that gold didn't give xp.

Also as Numion pointed out, it's all relative. The power level of PCs is meaningless unless you compare it to the monsters they're facing, which in 3e are extremely deadly. As Gary rightly points out in the 1e DMG, crits (and indeed all randomness) favour the monsters as eventually they will get lucky and roll two crits in a row, killing the tank. The only benefit the PCs can get from crits is that they kill an opponent faster than they would've otherwise.


----------



## Dyne (Jul 17, 2007)

Yippee, yet another "Let's bash Gary Gygax!" thread.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 17, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> More telling would be to know if he used stuff from it for his own characters.
> 
> EGG: "C'mon, my scores suck! Re-roll, c'mon?"
> DM: "You know the rule; no re-rolls"
> ...




  Actually, I've seen just that happen.  And the player get away with it.    (No, it wasn't me.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Dyne said:
			
		

> Yippee, yet another "Let's bash Gary Gygax!" thread.




It makes some people feel better about their gaming choices.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 17, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> UA made the PCs more powerful without altering their opposition, that's munchkin. 3E made the characters more powerful compared to 1E, but also made the monsters doubly so.




Sure. Although at least some of the UA was trying to improve balance. Maybe the monsters weren't made tougher across the board, but weapon specialization was a direct response to many people feeling fighters had become underpowered.

But, as I said, I'm not particularly interested in advocating that point. There are certainly many things in the UA that I never considered using in oAD&D.

One of the things that I think I don't really like about 3e is how as the numbers increase, they tend to increase on both sides of the equation, so your chances remain more static. So, I guess you could say I don't think 3e is munchkiny enough. (^_^)

& yeah. I do think grognards sometimes criticize 3e without really seeing the whole system. (As I did for rhetorical effect, in echo of Hussar.) Sure, you can pretty freely multiclass by-the-book, but it isn't really free. To really get advantage out of multiclassing, you have to really do some digging for synergies that are going to pay off. One of the things I admire about 3e is how it did an awfully good job of giving you consequences instead of limitations.

& while I used to use the UA as evidence in my adolescent Gygax-bashing sessions with my friends, I now know some of the problems he was facing at the time, so I tend to think it isn't the book he might have wanted it to be. & I certainly expect that he has learned quite a lot since then in any case.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2007)

I suppose it's fair to echo my rhetoric, although, I was merely addressing the point made before me.  The point was made that Gygax felt that 3e went further in empowering munchkins.  Yet, the UA pretty much makes every power advancement in 3e pale in comparison.  The fact that with the 9d6 stat gen system, you are almost guaranteed 3 18's.  Certainly, your prime stats should be above 16.  

While there are certainly elements in 3e that have upped the power scales, nothing, IMO, compares with UA.  UA is more like some of the 3rd party stuff that came out in early 3e, than something that was published several years after the edition hit the street.

On a side note, how is pointing out that the UA is probably the most munchkin book published for D&D, "Bashing Gygax"?  Are we now to never criticize?


----------



## RFisher (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a side note, how is pointing out that the UA is probably the most munchkin book published for D&D, "Bashing Gygax"?




For what it's worth & just to be clear, I don't think it is.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2007)

Wasn't pointing at you RFisher, but Dyne and company above.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wasn't pointing at you RFisher, but Dyne and company above.





Let's call it one of a sequence of "your gaming experiences never happened" threads then.

People level faster in 3.X than they did in your early AD&D games?  Nope.  Doesn't matter what your experience is.

People get more treasure/have more control over what treasure they get in 3.X than in your early AD&D games?  Nope.  Doesn't matter what your experience is.

Notice that MagicMarts are a lot more common than they were?  Nope.  People don't use them, no matter who says they do, and the term shouldn't be used anyway.  Doesn't matter what your experience is.

Think Gary's advice in the earlier books is better than the advice in the current books?  Nope.  He's a munchkin.  Doesn't matter what your experience is.

Ignored that 9d6 method as obviously intended for some other group?  Nope.  Still the most munchkinny book around.  Doesn't matter what your experience is.

Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2007)

> Ignored that 9d6 method as obviously intended for some other group? Nope. Still the most munchkinny book around. Doesn't matter what your experience is.




So, now we should just ignore those inconvenient bits of gaming history when it suits us?  I get taken to task for this over and over again, yet, here you are advocating sweeping it under the rug simply because it suits you?

I don't think so.  

UA was an incredibly munchkinny book.  Pretty much every part of it gave huge advantages to the PC's without giving anything to the critters.  Being able to start as a lord for example.  Heck, by UA, a paladin HAD to start off as upper society.  

But, since we're not supposed to mention anything like this, because, you know, any mention of the bad stuff in 1e is automatically edition bashing and wrong.  It's perfectly acceptable to use terminology that is insulting and elitist, but ONLY when discussing the perceived failings of 3e.

Or, perhaps, RC, you feel that selective editing of perception is more conducive to making your point?  That if we allow ourselves to actually look at what is there, rather than what we would like to be there, that it would be a better way to discuss matters?

Considering the number of times you've chucked the midden at me for apparently doing that, I find it rather surprising that you would advocate such a position.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, now we should just ignore those inconvenient bits of gaming history when it suits us?




No....But we should treat optional material as optional, rather than as the norm.  That 9d6 method?  Optional, and clearly described as such.

IOW, a little _*less*_ selective perception might be in order.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2007)

Fair enough about the 9d6 bit.  Although, I'm not sure how being optional makes it less munchkinny.  What about the other 99% of the book RC?  I did mention a rather lengthy list of issues.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 17, 2007)

“The stat generation mechanics set forth in UA were an acknowledgement that most players fudged their PC's stats. It was meant to remove the guilt by providing a system that would allow considerable numbers without cheating.”
-- E. Gary Gygax


“I don't want to mislead anyone about those [ability scores] for my main PCs. I was most careful to add to them whenever I could with whatever means was at hand. So some of them have really high ones after around 10 years of intense, skillful and lucky play.”
-- E. Gary Gygax


“I do indeed get a bit fed up with disputes about which game is 'best,' for it is a matter or personal/group taste. The same with niggling over mechanics and rules. The RPG is a bloody GAME, after all is said and done.”
-- E. Gary Gygax


[All above from the "Ask Gary Gygax" thread, here on ENWorld.]

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Fair enough about the 9d6 bit.  Although, I'm not sure how being optional makes it less munchkinny.  What about the other 99% of the book RC?  I did mention a rather lengthy list of issues.




3.X allows you start characters at levels other than 1st.....Oh my god!  They advocate starting at 20th level!  How munchkinny!

Clearly, knowing that there are games out there that want to use options doesn't make something munchkinny overall.

As far as the rest of the book goes, my groups used what we liked with very few difficulties.  Of course, that meant making some penalties actually *be* penalties (when in many games they would not).  It also almost required sandbox-style play.  And, even then, it required inserting the....how many pages was it?  Four?  Ten?...errata published in Dragon to clear up some problems.

(Sandbox-style play has an advantage with this sort of ruleset, in that the players choose the level of challenge - and hence reward - that they feel capable of facing.  So long as all of the PCs are roughly on the same starting keel, it can work.  Of course, my games have always had a lot to do with talking to people as well as bashing down dungeon doors, and I've never run into a PC who didn't want to mete justice regardless of his social class.   )

Even so, I will certainly allow that the 1e UA was the munchkinniest tome to come down the pike _at the time_.  I'm just not certain that it was the munchkinniest tome to _ever_ come down the pike.

When 2e was all the rage, the Complete books caused some folks problems, I know.  They worked well with my DMing style, but that was a matter of luck, sandbox-style play, and good players being on my side.  Some of those Complete books might vie with the old UA.  Heck, letting OA characters into a standard D&D game could be pretty munchkinny, too, if the DM's eye wasn't on the ball.

Each edition has good things about it, and bad.  Power creep occurred in 1e as it did in later editions.  I agree that UA wasn't power "creep", though.  Or, if it was, it failed it's Move Silently check.

RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No....But we should treat optional material as optional, rather than as the norm.  That 9d6 method?  Optional, and clearly described as such.




If you are going to make a big deal out of how some things were optional and other weren't, then your comments about the speed of levelling and treasure acquisition are basically nullities, since the "different" experiences people had relating to them in 1e were the result of house rule variants on the experience point awards (i.e. no awards for treasure) and ignoring the published treasure tables.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 17, 2007)

I'm always deeply suspicious of any expression of opinion that smacks of 'things were so much better in the good old days'. In all walks of life not just roleplaying. Nostalgia is real, and we must be wary of it.

"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." – Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC. (I got it from a CCG card.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you are going to make a big deal out of how some things were optional and other weren't, then your comments about the speed of levelling and treasure acquisition are basically nullities, since the "different" experiences people had relating to them in 1e were the result of house rule variants on the experience point awards (i.e. no awards for treasure) and ignoring the published treasure tables.




There are two factors involved here.

(1) is a sequence of threads seemingly trying to redefine people's experiences of both earlier and current editions.  Many people play 3e with house rules; 1e and 2e were built on the assumption that you would be using house rules.  What people did with the games is the important thing when examining people's actual experiences.

(2) is the statement that the 1e UA is the Most Munchkinny Book Evar! with an optional rule being used as proof.  It may be true that the 1e UA is the MMBE! but the presence of that optional rule isn't proof that it is.  Nor is it, IMHO, even much evidence.  The various Underdark races, the Cavalier, and the Barbarian OTOH may be submitted as Exhibits A, B, and C without too much controversy.

While I'm not sure that 1e UA is the MMBE!, I'll certainly agree it was at the time....and it made little (by which I mean no) effort to hide it.

Of course, the thread title is about Gary being a munchkin, not the UA being the MMBE!, and I think I was correct as to the reason the thread exists.  Some people feel better about their gaming choices if they can "prove" that they're playing the "rightgoodfun" way (or the way Gary must also have played...Old Skool!).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'm always deeply suspicious of any expression of opinion that smacks of 'things were so much better in the good old days'.





Sure.  But let us equally beware "Things haven't changed."

Things do change.  Older editions have strengths the current edition lacks.  The current edition has strengths the older editions lacks.  Windmill-tilters like me spend their time trying to rewrite the rules to include the strengths we like from all editions, in exchange for the weaknesses that concern us least.

{shrug}

Way of the world.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, the thread title is about Gary being a munchkin, not the UA being the MMBE!, and I think I was correct as to the reason the thread exists.  Some people feel better about their gaming choices if they can "prove" that they're playing the "rightgoodfun" way (or the way Gary must also have played...Old Skool!).



Quasqueton has been very consistent in his efforts to correct what he perceives as misperceptions regarding the early days of D&D. I see this thread as another in that long (and noble) line. What's so great about Quasq is that he does so by providing quotes. Actual textual evidence. Which imo is worth more than ten reminiscences, however interesting.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2007)

> (2) is the statement that the 1e UA is the Most Munchkinny Book Evar! with an optional rule being used as proof. It may be true that the 1e UA is the MMBE! but the presence of that optional rule isn't proof that it is. Nor is it, IMHO, even much evidence. The various Underdark races, the Cavalier, and the Barbarian OTOH may be submitted as Exhibits A, B, and C without too much controversy.




Umm, basic reading skills?

The stat gen system was one example given out of what, five, ten examples off the top of my head.  Of course, if you choose to simply hunt and peck whatever you want to refute, then it makes discussion that much easier I suppose.

In case you missed it the first time around:



> Ok, I gotta ask. How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?




Just as a question though.  About starting at higher level.  Was there a rule in 1e that you couldn't start at higher levels?  I don't remember that one.  Not surprising, since there is so much that I don't remember, but, that's a big one to forget.  Funny all those people breaking the rules by allowing new PC's to come in at higher level.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just as a question though.  About starting at higher level.  Was there a rule in 1e that you couldn't start at higher levels?  I don't remember that one.  Not surprising, since there is so much that I don't remember, but, that's a big one to forget.  Funny all those people breaking the rules by allowing new PC's to come in at higher level.




No, there was not. In point of fact, there was a section in the appendices of the 1e DMG about how to create higher level characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Quasqueton has been very consistent in his efforts to correct *what he perceives* as misperceptions regarding the early days of D&D.




Those being the operative words.  

Eventually, though, Quasqueton also started a thread to explore why the conclusions drawn by those quotes and textual references don't actually speak to a number of gamers.  For example, despite the fact that I used the 1e UA with many gamers in Wisconsin, Indiana, Lousiana, and Virginia, I never ran into any real problems with the book.  That's a lot of consistent "no worries" that is the exact opposite of many other people's experience.

I have now come to believe that many 3e threads have a similar genesis.  Depending upon our makeup as gamers, and the "reader filter" we come to the text with, some things are serious problems for one group while they don't even show on the radar of others.  This is something I think is less dependent upon edition, and more dependent upon the nature of language/human beings.

I am not questioning that Quasqueton wants to "clear up" what he views as "misunderstandings" about earlier editions; I am questioning why he feels it is necessary.  By extension, I am questioning why I feel it is necessary as well.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?




I think we've covered the stat generation.  The others were all already answered upthread, I believe, before you singled out the 9d6.  Which is why I only answered the 9d6 question.

Interestingly enough, though, "+3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, [and] incrementally increasing stats" were all supplied in one book, and made available to everyone.  It was called the 3.0 PHB.    

In 1e, in order to use class or race options, you had to meet prerequisites, which, depending upon your DM, might mean that you got the chance to have very few of the UA perks.  



> Just as a question though. About starting at higher level. Was there a rule in 1e that you couldn't start at higher levels? I don't remember that one. Not surprising, since there is so much that I don't remember, but, that's a big one to forget. Funny all those people breaking the rules by allowing new PC's to come in at higher level.




Remembering that, in 1e, any "rule" was an "optional rule" if the DM said so, I believe that the PHB says that new characters begin at 1st level, and I believe that the DMG advised against granting unearned levels.  But I would have to check to be certain.

Unless MerricB is around.  He's pretty much an authority on this sort of thing.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, there was not. In point of fact, there was a section in the appendices of the 1e DMG about how to create higher level characters.





I'll take a look when I get home tonight.  Are you sure you aren't thinking about NPC parties?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 17, 2007)

Dyne said:
			
		

> Yippee, yet another "Let's bash Gary Gygax!" thread.




Kinda sad really.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2007)

> "+3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level,




What gives you that at 1st level in the 3e PHB?  I missed that one.  I know that I could get maybe a +1 to hit, possibly an extra ranged attack, but that's about it.

Also, the 3e PHB didn't raise the level limits.  It set them as unlimited.  There was no previous limit in 3e to raise.  2e and 1e had level limits, but, those are different games.

And, again, I have to ask, how does being optional make something less munchkinny?  You keep pointing to how questions are answered upthread, yet, looking upthread, I see no answers.  I would also point out that it was you who focussed on the stat gen method, not me.  I simply answered your single minded response to a rather wide range of issues.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, the thread title is about Gary being a munchkin, not the UA being the MMBE!, and I think I was correct as to the reason the thread exists.  Some people feel better about their gaming choices if they can "prove" that they're playing the "rightgoodfun" way (or the way Gary must also have played...Old Skool!).
> 
> 
> RC




Everyone wants to be on the winning team.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What gives you that at 1st level in the 3e PHB?  I missed that one.




Not too hard to have a +1 BAB at 1st level, and a +2 bonus for Strength, is it?      Then all you need to do is fight with two weapons.



> Also, the 3e PHB didn't raise the level limits.  It set them as unlimited.  There was no previous limit in 3e to raise.  2e and 1e had level limits, but, those are different games.




I have oft heard it argued that all three are D&D.



> And, again, I have to ask, how does being optional make something less munchkinny?




Something that is optional is less likely to be used than something that is not.  Moreover, something that is optional is more likely to be examined for desireability than something that is not.

In many ways, the 1e UA was intended to ramp up the power level of the D&D game overall.  In other ways it was intended to increase options.  Or so it seems to me.  Some things in there were good (appendix on pole arms was what I liked best) and some things less so.  Some of the spells, as I recall, could have severe consequences if used in a game as written.

There were things in the UA that I'd agree were broken.  I think most people agree that there are some really broken things in there.  That doesn't make Gary a munchkin, though.  "Broken" and "Munchkinny" may have related meanings, but saying that Gary put out some broken material doesn't mean that it was his intent that the material be broken.

I didn't have any problem with the Social Class rules, for example, and still use a varient thereof.  Being higher on the social scale gives you certain rights, but those rights all come with obligations.  Also, since most adventurers act like minor nobility, I thought, why not allow most adventurers to _be_ minor nobility?

Saying "Gary wasn't as careful as he could be when writing rules" is hard to refute.  Even if you just use the three main books.  Saying that, therefore, Gary embraced wholesale the same kinds of changes that were made in later editions is pushing it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not too hard to have a +1 BAB at 1st level, and a +2 bonus for Strength, is it?      Then all you need to do is fight with two weapons.




That's only +1/+1 to hit at first level.   

In any event, 3e has nothing like the double weapon specialization available to 1st level fighters under the 1e UA rules.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'll take a look when I get home tonight.  Are you sure you aren't thinking about NPC parties?




No. The section was concerned with making high level PCs. I suppose it could be used to make high level NPCs too, but it was aimed at making PCs for use in games that started at higher level. If I recall correctly (I don't have my 1e books with me right now, I can check them tonight), it was near the section on converting AD&D characters for use in Gamma World and Boot Hill games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's only +1/+1 to hit at first level.
> 
> In any event, 3e has nothing like the double weapon specialization available to 1st level fighters under the 1e UA rules.




D'oh!  That's what I get for not paying attention to what the hell I am saying.  You're right, I need to use my point buy to get an 18 Strength and a 15 Dexterity.  Then I make sure to be a half-orc, to boost that up to 20.  I use a light off-hand weapon and select the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.  I now attack with both weapons with a +1 BAB, +5 bonus for Strength, and -2 penalty for two weapons....+4/+4.

Where the 1e fighter might really show me up is at 10th level, where he's getting to kill 10 orcs a round....but even with Great Cleave no more than 9 orcs can surround me in 3e.

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 17, 2007)

It's page 110-111.

"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters."

Gary goes on to recommend that new players should start at 1st level, then mix their PC in with the old hands by the time he reaches 3rd or 4th level and can make a meaningful contribution.

"You will recall how much fun it was when you didn't really know what was going on or which monster was which or how to do anything but loved every second of it!"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No. The section was concerned with making high level PCs. I suppose it could be used to make high level NPCs too, but it was aimed at making PCs for use in games that started at higher level. If I recall correctly (I don't have my 1e books with me right now, I can check them tonight), it was near the section on converting AD&D characters for use in Gamma World and Boot Hill games.




I'll take a look when I get home tonight.

(OFF TOPIC ASIDE:  Conversion to non-fantasy systems, btw, is one place where 3.X is far stronger than earlier editions.  The granularity of characters allows for many more character types to be created.  I have often been tempted since 3e to run a fantasy Western D&D game.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's page 110-111.




Now I don't have to look.  I stand corrected.

Apparently, Gary _*was*_ a munchkin!   

(EDIT:  That was, hopefully, understandable as a joke.  The idea that "OMG, you can make characters higher than 1st level" does not a munchkin game make is as true for Gary as for Monte....Although I thank Doug & Storm for the rules corrections.)


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> There was no previous limit in 3e to raise.  2e and 1e had level limits, but, those are different games.



Different games, or sequential editions of the same game?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> D'oh!  That's what I get for not paying attention to what the hell I am saying.  You're right, I need to use my point buy to get an 18 Strength and a 15 Dexterity.  Then I make sure to be a half-orc, to boost that up to 20.  I use a light off-hand weapon and select the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.  I now attack with both weapons with a +1 BAB, +5 bonus for Strength, and -2 penalty for two weapons....+4/+4.
> 
> Where the 1e fighter might really show me up is at 10th level, where he's getting to kill 10 orcs a round....but even with Great Cleave no more than 9 orcs can surround me in 3e.




Or the 1e fighter might show you up at first level, with an 18/00 strength (hey, if you get to have a 20 Strength in 3e, I get to max out as a 1e guy) and double weapon specialization. Then I get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds on the fighter attack table at +6 to hit, and +10 to damage. Heck, if I read the 1e DMG I might find the section on attacking with two weapons and run my Dexterity up to 16 or so, pick up a pair of hand axes, and attack 5 times every 2 rounds at +6/+6 and +10/+10 to damage.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Or the 1e fighter might show you up at first level, with an 18/00 strength (hey, if you get to have a 20 Strength in 3e, I get to max out as a 1e guy) and double weapon specialization. Then I get to attack 3 times every 2 rounds on the fighter attack table at +6 to hit, and +10 to damage.




Sure, but if you don't cheat, what are the odds of rolling an 18/00 Strength?  Even if you use the most Munchkinny method of 1e, the odds are still somewhat less than 1%.

Conversely, what are the odds of being able to get an 18 Strength and 15 Dexterity using the pretty common 35-point-buy method of the current edition?  Wouldn't that be 100%?

There is no doubt that 1e characters were far more variable in their abilities at 1st level than 3e characters.  They certainly had more potential to be so (random chance of psionic powers, anyone?).  But 3e characters are _certain_ to be optimized for their level, and that is far more muchkinny IMHO.

Which is my way of saying that while I agree that the UA represented a sudden leap in power to 1e characters, I still don't buy it as the MMBE!

IMHO.  YMMV.  YDMB.


RC


EDIT:  Ever notice how many forum discussions resemble, in the final analysis, Monty Python routines?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 17, 2007)

For some reason i don't recall double weapon specialization being available at first level are you quite certain on that?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure, but if you don't cheat, what are the odds of rolling an 18/00 Strength?  Even if you use the most Munchkinny method of 1e, the odds are still somewhat less than 1%.




If I am using the methods provided in UA for generating a fighter, I am almost certain to get an 18+ Strength and a 15+ Dexterity. Which, when coupled with double specialization and fighting with two weapons, gives me at least 5/2 attacks at +4/+4 and +6/+6 damage. And that is if I roll poorly on my % strength roll; I am likely to be much better.

Of course, I could totally munchkin out and play a cavalier (or better yet, a UA paladin). Then I'd be certain to have an 18/00 Strength, 18 Dexterity, and 18 Constitution by about 5th level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If I am using the methods provided in UA for generating a fighter, I am almost certain to get an 18+ Strength and a 15+ Dexterity. Which, when coupled with double specialization and fighting with two weapons, gives me at least 5/2 attacks at +4/+4 and +6/+6 damage. And that is if I roll poorly on my % strength roll; I am likely to be much better.
> 
> Of course, I could totally munchkin out and play a cavalier (or better yet, a UA paladin). Then I'd be certain to have an 18/00 Strength, 18 Dexterity, and 18 Constitution by about 5th level.




Excepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization).  One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.  

And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.

However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score.  It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough.

In UA, you see an attempt to balance the fighter against the Magic-User, Cleric, and other spellcasters.  The new classes are designed to be on par with those classes.  It is an attempt to create a balance that, if balance was truly the holy mantra that some would have it be, should make us applaud the intent if not the execution.


----------



## Numion (Jul 17, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure, but if you don't cheat, what are the odds of rolling an 18/00 Strength?  Even if you use the most Munchkinny method of 1e, the odds are still somewhat less than 1%.
> 
> Conversely, what are the odds of being able to get an 18 Strength and 15 Dexterity using the pretty common 35-point-buy method of the current edition?  Wouldn't that be 100%?




Well, as you said:



> No....But we should treat optional material as optional, rather than as the norm.




Point buy is optional in 3.0E (3.0E DMG, p. 19 "Here are eight optional variants you might want to consider.."). So there's no guaranteed 18's.. Maybe it's standard in 3.5E, though.

I'm a 3.0 grognard. I already feel rose colored shades blurring my vision a bit ..


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Point buy is optional in 3.0E (3.0E DMG, p. 19 "Here are eight optional variants you might want to consider.."). So there's no guaranteed 18's.. Maybe it's standard in 3.5E, though.




Not so far as I know.

And, you're right....optional things shouldn't be considered to determine how "munchkinny" a game system is.  My argument, though, was that the arguments about UA material cut both ways.  The odds against getting a game-breaking character, using only the standard rules and not cheating, is a lot slimmer using the UA than many folks believe.

A lot of the things people complain about in the UA (barbarian, incremental stat increase, for example) were dropped in 2e and put back into 3e....in some cases, made more univeral.  The implementation of the book might leave something to be desired, but the basic ideas behind it weren't that terrible.

Nothing on this thread has convinced me that Gary is or was a munchkin.  I am, however, convinced that Gary had a sense of humour about himself.

IMHO.  YMMV.  YDMB.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 17, 2007)

In 3.5, 4d6-1 is the default. It's the only method mentioned in the PHB. There are eight options in the DMG, the first of which, the Standard Point Buy, is 25 pts. Nonstandard Point Buy, the 2nd option, ranges from 15 to 32 pts. Five of the remaining six methods are dice rolling variations.

In my game I gave players the option of 28pt buy or 4d6-1. Very recently I've noticed the same problem with rolling Gygax mentions, players will just suicide if the rolls aren't good enough, so I'm thinking of switching to compulsory point buy next campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 18, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Something that is optional is less likely to be used than something that is not.  Moreover, something that is optional is more likely to be examined for desireability than something that is not.




But that doesn't track.  How often something is used in no way relates to how munchkinny it is.  That's like saying Pun Pun is not munchkinny because it's never been used in an actual campaign (to my knowledge).  The fact that it relies on numerous optional rules, and some shady interpretations apparently doesn't enter into the equation.

As far as generating high stats, while it isn't 9d6 for every stat, it is 9d6, then 8d6 then 7d6 all the way down to 3d6 (usually for Cha).  The odds are pretty bloody high that your fighter is going to have an 18 str, 18 Con and 18 Dex (or very close to it) using that method.

I'm still failing to understand how "number of times used" has anything to do with how munchkinny something is.  Just because it's not used doesn't make it any less munchkin.


----------



## Slife (Jul 18, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that doesn't track.  How often something is used in no way relates to how munchkinny it is.  That's like saying Pun Pun is not munchkinny because it's never been used in an actual campaign (to my knowledge).  The fact that it relies on numerous optional rules, and some shady interpretations apparently doesn't enter into the equation.




A few people have actually used him.  

Just saying.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 18, 2007)

*facepalm*

Sigh.  I suppose I was asking for that.  

My point still remains though - how does the number of times a rule is used relate to whether or not a rule is munchkinny/broken?  How often does a rule have to be used before it comes up for consideration?


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jul 18, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Point buy is optional in 3.0E (3.0E DMG, p. 19 "Here are eight optional variants you might want to consider.."). So there's no guaranteed 18's.. Maybe it's standard in 3.5E, though.
> 
> I'm a 3.0 grognard. I already feel rose colored shades blurring my vision a bit ..




Nah, 3.5 still uses 4d6 drop lowest as standard, and more's the pity.

Please note that while you might always choose to get an 18 with point buy, few do so unless the other 5 ability scores are of little concern to them. That 18 costs 16 of your 25 points, which means if you distribute the rest equally, you'll have 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 9, or, if you concentrate on another stat, 18, 15, 9, 8, 8, 8.

Of course, if the DM grants you more points, it will be easier to get an 18 without crippling the character in all but his primary stat, but unless you give out a lot of points, stuff like 9d6 keep 3 best still wins out almost every time.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 18, 2007)

I'm impressed by all the energy being spent on this rather pointless debate.  Some things never change here, it seems.
 :\


----------



## Numion (Jul 18, 2007)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I'm impressed by all the energy being spent on this rather pointless debate.  Some things never change here, it seems.
> :\




Yep, some things. Like people butting in in threads they find completely pointless


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But that doesn't track.  How often something is used in no way relates to how munchkinny it is.  That's like saying Pun Pun is not munchkinny because it's never been used in an actual campaign (to my knowledge).




No.  It is like saying that 3.X isn't munchkinny because Pun Pun is unlikely to ever used in a game.  However, if you do use Pun Pun in your game, it would be fair to say that your _game_ is munchkinny.

IMHO.  YMMV.  YDMB.


RC


----------



## Slife (Jul 18, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No.  It is like saying that 3.X isn't munchkinny because Pun Pun is unlikely to ever used in a game.  However, if you do use Pun Pun in your game, it would be fair to say that your _game_ is munchkinny.
> 
> IMHO.  YMMV.  YDMB.
> 
> ...



Depends on how he's used.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2007)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I'm impressed by all the energy being spent on this rather pointless debate.  Some things never change here, it seems.
> :\




In the final analysis, internet forums resemble nothing more than Monty Python routines writ large.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Depends on how he's used.




Hence, IMHO. YMMV. YDMB.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 18, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I didn't have any problem with the Social Class rules, for example, and still use a varient thereof.  Being higher on the social scale gives you certain rights, but those rights all come with obligations.  Also, since most adventurers act like minor nobility, I thought, why not allow most adventurers to _be_ minor nobility?




Before UA, there were DMs that assumed every PC was (at least) minor nobility. If they switched to the UA social class rules, it could mean a decrease in the average PC social level. If the DM ignored the UA social class rules but included the Cavalier, then things could be weird because the social class rules were really part of the Cavalier class.

& when you're looking at ability score generation, I don't see many of the more liberal score generation schemes used in oAD&D as being all that different than 3e changing the modifier table. (Though my groups never used the UA method--we arguably used something even _more_ munchkiny.) In 1e, we left the table alone & changed the probability that we'd get scores that gave a modifier. In 3e, they instead changed the table to give modifiers at lower scores, so sticking to 4d6k3 no longer makes 15, 15, 15, 15, 14 feel like 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10.

In any case, I think if any of us had as much text in print over as many years & had as many people reading it as Gygax, it'd be trivial to find two comments that seem ironic when pulled out of context & placed together. Heck, you could probably "prove" almost anything you wanted to that way.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 18, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization).  One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.




Cavaliers (and paladins) had their own set of bonuses for attacking with various weapons - which were almost as powerful and far more versatile than the fighter's specialization.



> _And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level._




Which makes getting the +3 to attacks and damage a much more reliable character element for a 1e character than the bonuses from high strength for a 3e character.



> _However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score.  It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough._




Sure, it varies by class, so fighters roll 9d6 for Strength, and 7d6 for Dexterity and so on. To munckin out a double weapon using fighter using UA, one only needs high Strength and high Dexterity, so the fact that you "only" roll 3d6 for Charisma is of almost no consequence.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Cavaliers (and paladins) had their own set of bonuses for attacking with various weapons - which were almost as powerful and far more versatile than the fighter's specialization.




In other words, they were an attempt to create non-spellcasting classes that balanced out the spellcasting classes.  Were balance considered the holy mantra then that it is now, people would have sung hossanahs.

Well, if the implementation had been a bit better, anyway.  

As always, IMHO, YMMV, & YDMB.

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 18, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> & when you're looking at ability score generation, I don't see many of the more liberal score generation schemes used in oAD&D as being all that different than 3e changing the modifier table. (Though my groups never used the UA method--we arguably used something even _more_ munchkiny.) In 1e, we left the table alone & changed the probability that we'd get scores that gave a modifier. In 3e, they instead changed the table to give modifiers at lower scores, so sticking to 4d6k3 no longer makes 15, 15, 15, 15, 14 feel like 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10.




But in 1E the effect was different in that monsters didn't get ability modifiers.

Anyway, 3E didn't go far enough in changing the tables. What use is an ability number if you only ever use the modifier?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 18, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Anyway, 3E didn't go far enough in changing the tables. What use is an ability number if you only ever use the modifier?




To be entirely pedantic, you _do_ use the ability number for some things. For example, certain feats have ability score (not modifier) requirements.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2007)

I actually dumped the scores and went straight to the modifiers for my Dr Who D20ish game.

RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 18, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In other words, they were an attempt to create non-spellcasting classes that balanced out the spellcasting classes.  Were balance considered the holy mantra then that it is now, people would have sung hossanahs.




Not really though. The various fighting classes were already so much more durable than the spellcasting classes through the levels that were played (generally 1st through about 10th-12th) that boosting them up didn't do much other than radically unbalance the system more than it was already. Only at the higher end of that scale did the spellcasters start to come into their own.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 18, 2007)

Glad you're convinced.  I'm not, though.

I certainly agree that the implimentation could have been better, but the intent was toward balance.


----------



## Numion (Jul 19, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Glad you're convinced.  I'm not, though.
> 
> I certainly agree that the implimentation could have been better, but the intent was toward balance.




I'll retract some of my comments, and actually think you might be right here, after reading the GG Q&A thread.

I said here that UA was towards munchkinism because the opposition wasn't strengthened in line with PCs, but I've now read Garys comments on the Q&A thread, and he said the intention was to include similar bonuses for monsters - however the development of his 2nd edition 1e (if that makes any sense) was cut short by the unfortunate developments at TSR.

So in a sense we never got to see the MM side of UA.

BTW, we used the method IX for character generation in around '88-'89 - with crooked dice, top that! (Somehow, somebody had inherited from older players some filed d6's. It was kosher to use them).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 19, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I'll retract some of my comments, and actually think you might be right here, after reading the GG Q&A thread.




Proof positive that folks in Finland rock!


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 19, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> To be entirely pedantic, you _do_ use the ability number for some things. For example, certain feats have ability score (not modifier) requirements.




Also, it slows down the increase and decrease of ability scores.  The bonus +1 every 4 levels doesn't add +1 to the modifier every 4 levels when added to one stat, but potentially can add a +1 to two stats over 8 levels.

Ability damage/drains also are affected.  In fact, you can be "drained" with an odd score and potentially lose no modifier,


----------



## RFisher (Jul 19, 2007)

Of course, I think a real problem with me in this discussion is that I'm not sure I believe in munchkins.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> But in 1E the effect was different in that monsters didn't get ability modifiers.




Yeah, but monsters were _different_. e.g. They had the best "to hit" progression in the game. They'd get claw/claw/bite attack routines while it took a good while for any PC to work their way up to three attacks/round. They got magic resistance. They were balanced separately with their own simpler (or perhaps: more appropriate) mechanics rather than requiring all the PC rules to apply to them.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 20, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No.  It is like saying that 3.X isn't munchkinny because Pun Pun is unlikely to ever used in a game.  However, if you do use Pun Pun in your game, it would be fair to say that your _game_ is munchkinny.
> 
> IMHO.  YMMV.  YDMB.
> 
> ...




But, I never said 1e is munkinny.  I never said your game is munkinny.  I said that the UA is munkinny because of a number of things, including the chargen section.  Bringing up a number of unrelated issues like how often the rules were used doesn't change the fact that its munchkinny.  It's still bad rules, just not often used bad rules.  

BTW, what is YDMB?  You Dumb Monster Basher?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 20, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, I never said 1e is munkinny.  I never said your game is munkinny.  I said that the UA is munkinny because of a number of things, including the chargen section.  Bringing up a number of unrelated issues like how often the rules were used doesn't change the fact that its munchkinny.  It's still bad rules, just not often used bad rules.




Glad you're convinced. I'm not, though.

I certainly agree that the implimentation could have been better, but the intent was toward balance.



> BTW, what is YDMB?  You Dumb Monster Basher?




Your Dog May Bite.  (Sort of spoofing the need to YMMV at the end of every opinion lest others feel mortally offended.  Feel free to use it.   )

RC


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 20, 2007)

> Yippee, yet another "Let's bash Gary Gygax!" thread.



First, this is not a bash on EGG. The title of the thread is meant to be humorous. If you found offense in it, I suggest your offense-o-meter is tuned a bit too sensitive.

Second, by saying "another" you are suggesting there are other threads on ENWorld that bash EGG. I've never seen any. Not one.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Many people consider 3E to be catering to powergamers and be the source of decline in roleplaying, so it's kinda ironic that the creater of D&D fits that bill too.



This was, indeed, the irony I saw in EGG's statement compared to a lot of claims, here, of "how it was." 

Personally, I do not disapprove of the play style EGG suggested in the quote in the OP. I have a good bit of that attitude in my own play style. But the quoted statement is the very definition some people now a days give to "munchkinism." 



> Quasqueton has been very consistent in his efforts to correct what he perceives as misperceptions regarding the early days of D&D.



For the record, I'm not trying to "correct" anyone's perceptions. I just often find counterpoint evidence to a lot of strange claims about the editions of D&D. I only post a small fraction of the evidence I find, and it seems to enivitably start an edition war.

Quasqueton


----------



## RFisher (Jul 20, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> This was, indeed, the irony I saw in EGG's statement compared to a lot of claims, here, of "how it was."




You've really seen a significant number of people claim that there wasn't munchkinism or even ambitious play in the 1e days?

What I've seen is people countering the ideas that munchkins (& jerk DMs) were an out-of-control problem in 1e days & that a system like 3e was needed as a remedy.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 20, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> You've really seen a significant number of people claim that there wasn't munchkinism or even ambitious play in the 1e days?
> 
> What I've seen is people countering the ideas that munchkins (& jerk DMs) were an out-of-control problem in 1e days & that a system like 3e was needed as a remedy.




ditto.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 20, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> You've really seen a significant number of people claim that there wasn't munchkinism or even ambitious play in the 1e days?
> 
> What I've seen is people countering the ideas that munchkins (& jerk DMs) were an out-of-control problem in 1e days & that a system like 3e was needed as a remedy.




ditto to the previous ditto


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 20, 2007)

> What I've seen is people countering the ideas that munchkins (& jerk DMs) were an out-of-control problem in 1e days & that a system like 3e was needed as a remedy.



Interesting. I've never noticed anyone say munckins and jerk DMs were an out-of-control problem *only* in AD&D1 days, or that D&D3 was a remedy for munckings and jerk DMs. (I'm trying to stay true to your statement, so if I misparaphrase, call me on it.)

I've seen people say that munchkins and jerk DMs _existed_ in AD&D1 days _just like they exist_ in the current D&D3 days. (I say this, myself. No game system can elimiate jerks from the player pool.)

I've also seen people say that D&D3 _created and promotes_ munchkinism and jerk Players. 

And that munchkins and jerks didn't exist in AD&D1 days _because the rules prevented or didn't allow it._

It's these last two claims that I often find counter evidence on. And the evidence I find supports the first statement.

I regulary find evidence that D&D's heart and soul, Players and DMs, play styles and annoyances are pretty much the same now as they were 10, 20, and 30 years ago. I'm shocked that so many find this concept. . . heretical.

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 20, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Interesting. I've never noticed anyone say munckins and jerk DMs were an out-of-control problem *only* in AD&D1 days, or that D&D3 was a remedy for munckings and jerk DMs.




I've participated in several of those threads.  They are usually the same threads that I imagine you mean when you say 



> I've also seen people say that D&D3 _created and promotes_ munchkinism and jerk Players.




which I have said, and which I think may be true to some degree (if you mean "created" in the sense that "some people reading the core rules interpret it in such a way as to make them become jerk Players" and not "originated jerk players for all time"), and

And that munchkins and jerks didn't exist in AD&D1 days _because the rules prevented or didn't allow it._[/quote]

which, honestly, I've never heard anyone say.

RC


----------



## RFisher (Jul 23, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Interesting. I've never noticed anyone say munckins and jerk DMs were an out-of-control problem *only* in AD&D1 days, or that D&D3 was a remedy for munckings and jerk DMs. (I'm trying to stay true to your statement, so if I misparaphrase, call me on it.)




OK, to try to avoid even minor hyperbole...

I have read people saying that 3e has elminated or seriously reduced any "bad DM" problems. So, in that sense, yes, they are saying that "bad DMs" were a big problem when they played 1e but are much less of a problem now that they are playing 3e.

I've also read people saying that 3e has effectively eliminated rules lawyering. (My statement may have been a bit off for munchkins. I don't know that I've seen anyone arguing that 3e helped with munchkins.)

As for munchkins...



> And that munchkins and jerks didn't exist in AD&D1 days _because the rules prevented or didn't allow it._




OK, I have occasionally seen such claims, but infrequent enough to not consider them significant.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure.  From many of the stories in the various "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" columns I get the impression that they were quite fond of solo adventuring in those days.  No "fellow players" to backstab.
> 
> I wonder if this was partially because once they reached higher levels there weren't many other PCs to adventure together.  Combine that with the difficulty in getting a group together, and how common cohorts and hirelings were and you get a lot of solo adventuring.



Basically on target  

All the really able players wanted to adventure wheneverpossible, and that often meant playing solo. this was doubly true for me, because I was so oftem DMing or bust writing. That is why I had so many PCs, so when necessary a whole party could be there even though I was playing solo.

It should go without saying that I much preferred to play with others...assuming they were veterans who knew what they were doing with their PCs.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Many people consider 3E to be catering to powergamers and be the source of decline in roleplaying, so it's kinda ironic that the creater of D&D fits that bill too.



I beg your pardon!

That is a leap that is absolutely unfounded.

What I did was to maximize the potential of each of my PCs while staying within not only the rules but also the spirit of the game. The success of such play is wholly within the realm of the game form. Excellence of play is rewarded, while incompetence is penalized.

Power gaming is entirely different from playing well. Never once was I attempting to have the most powerful character, only to play to the best of my ability within the framewirk of the game rules and the DM's campaign, the scenario presented at the time.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> In Forge and Robin Laws-terminology, Gary comes off to me as one of the more "role-play lite" gamers out there. He's in it for the fun, if in-character banter happens, then great, but having fun with it, whether it be puns, crazy traps, deus-ex-machina-yet cool situations, etc. is the primary focus. It's why I like him so much - this very thing influenced my and my friends' play as we were growing up. We had the stupid names and jokes, the power-gamed characters who carried everything from pouches of black pepper to throw off trackers to cut-off medusa heads on sticks to scare monsters with, etc. And if our characters started a game buck naked in the bottom of the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, then that was cool too - we'd never done it before!



Now that is spot on...

The principal operative word in the exercise is GAME, not role-playing. If the latter term were to be considered paramount, then it would be an acting class, and likely a very badly performed one at that  

And how is using innovative tactics power gaming? Ot most certainly is not!

My PCs used clay marbles to discover slanting passages, flour to cover invisible things, used monsters polymorphed into snails as missiles--then returned to their normal state by a dispell magic and variuous other imaginative devices of my own creation enabling successful adventuring. Those other PCs playing with my PCs benefited from such stratigies and tactics and appreciated them.

Finally, as a matter of fact, a PC of mine only attacked other PCs in the party once--when two of them were blatently conspiring to attack my PC and gain a wand of lightning bolts he had. They got it all right, but only the business end   

Cheerio.
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> (From what I remember in one of the Q&A threads): Originally, abilities where generated by rolling 3d6 in order, as we know. BUT, Col Pladoh's players would simply refuse to play a bad set of stats....so they would roll, and roll, until they got the stats they wanted. Other methods, like the reasonable 4d6 drop one and arrange, and presumably the more exciting UA variant, where born from this.



Yuppers, that's about how it went...and it wasn't wring for those persons.

Some people can take what's handed to them and have fun making the most of it. Others have someting definate in mind when they sit down to play a character, and if they can not play the cort of game persona they envision, it is no fun for them to play. There's nothing inherantly wrong about that approach.

Enabling the player to enjoy the gaming experience as he desires is completely justified in this regard. It does not alter the purpose of the game nor its spirit.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It makes some people feel better about their gaming choices.



 

I see it more as those that can't do feel better about that lack by giping about what has been done by another...an attempt to make themselves bigger by tearing another down  

 
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization).  One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.
> 
> And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.
> 
> ...



Ah, at last!

Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap  

As I have covered on another thread here on these boards what I did not have a chance to get into a revised edition of OAD&D but did have the opportunity to demonstrate in the Yggsburgh campaign setting for the C&C game is the following;

Monster HD number would have remained basically the same, although intelligent monster leader types would have more HD than the run of the mill members of their sort, thus using the attack matrix their chance to successfully attack would remain the same save for exceptional members of their kind that would increase.

Monster HD type would vary by the size and robustness of the creature: Small and relatively puny ones would have d4, those slightly more powerful would have d6, then d8, next d10, and finally d12 for the big and very robust monsters such as ogres, giants, and of course dragons. Furthermore, normal robust adults of large humanoid sort would have their d12 HPs determined by rolling d6 and adding 6 (for 7-12 HPs per HD), while elderly, injured, and immature specimins would only half the normal potential--so a d6 for the d12, This same system applies to the lesser HDs as well--d10, d8, d6, and d4.

Finally the large and powerful or otherwise particularly deadly monsters would have in addition to any strength bonus added to their damage inflicted, a size or attack form bonus equal to the number of HD they possessed (or half that number of the wealer sort getting onlt hald HD potential). Thus for example an oger would be attacking with a +4 additional damage, a hill giant +8 for size and ferocity, plus theior Str bonus, of course.

Now I suppose some whill call that monster munchkinism...  

Cheerio,
Gary

P.S. Of course my ideas regarding gaming, and virtually everything else for that matter, change over time because of experience and relection, additional knowledge and understanding. I do believe that is called growth and maturity.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Yep, some things. Like people butting in in threads they find completely pointless



 

Pray tell, how does one "butt into" a thread on a board that invites participation in any threrad not restricted by the moderators?

It appears that you are expressing pique at someone that dares criticize what you evidentally find precious   

Cheerio,
Gary the Buttinski


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Not really though. The various fighting classes were already so much more durable than the spellcasting classes through the levels that were played (generally 1st through about 10th-12th) that boosting them up didn't do much other than radically unbalance the system more than it was already. Only at the higher end of that scale did the spellcasters start to come into their own.



I must disagree, Let your 7th kevel fighter eat a lightning bolt, a frieball, and a couple of magic missile attacks from a 7th level m-u and see how well he manages. or maybe stand against a hold person spell by an m-u or cleric of the same level. This is not to mention wand attacks of the same sort...as well as paralyzation and polymorph.

For that matter see if he can survive seven charm person spells cast by as many 1st level m-us... I know that even mu highest level PCs would attempt to get away from a gaggle of low-level m-us armed with charm person spells.

Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with eachother.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 23, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Ah, at last!
> 
> Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap





Praise from the Colonel is praise indeed!

Good Gaming!

RC


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Praise from the Colonel is praise indeed!
> 
> Good Gaming!
> 
> RC



Just another gamer in all  

As to edition wars:

The reason I dislike expressing an opinion regarding any game is that it really doesn't matter what I think about it. Those that do like it will think I am a jerk if I do not agree with their fondness, while those that don't like it will feel validated in their dislike because of my particulay taste.

What really matters is how one that is playing any particular game enjoys it. If it is fun, then that is a great game for him. If it is not enjoyable, then it is not a worthwhile creation for him.

Arguing about taste in games convinces no one either way and will surely cause irritation in the strongly help opinion camps, be they yas or nay.

So much for stating the obvious.

 
Gary


----------



## Hussar (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Ah, at last!
> 
> Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap
> 
> ...




It's really a shame these rules were never instituted in 1e.  I know I would have really liked to have seen them.  :/


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's really a shame these rules were never instituted in 1e.  I know I would have really liked to have seen them.  :/



Ah yes...

There would have been a number of changes in the AD&D revised edition that I planned, the new and unusual classes--Mountebank, Mystic, and Savant, two of them demanding at least an effort at role-playing.

Have a look ar the C&C game. Some of the monster HD and HP adjustments are in the Yggsburgh campaign setting, as are some character skill bundles that are of more recent vintage. those make for more varied PCs and more interesting NPCs, so all that are encountered need not be of a class to be meaningful.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Halivar (Jul 24, 2007)

I didn't start playing until the 3.0 era. What is this UA you all speak of, and what is this stat-rolling mechanism you refer to?


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> There would have been a number of changes in the AD&D revised edition that I planned



So AD&D1 was not perfect as is? You were going to _change_ it? [/silly]

I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?

Quasqueton


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 24, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> I didn't start playing until the 3.0 era. What is this UA you all speak of, and what is this stat-rolling mechanism you refer to?




UA is was the _Unearthed Arcana_.  It was sort of the first real "expansion" of the D&D rules.

The stat generation method was similar to the roll 4d6 and take the best 3 mehtod.  However, each class had a certain number of dice you rolled for each stat, and there was no rearranging.  Typically you rolled 9d6 for your prime stat, 8d6 for the secondary stat down to taking 3d6 straight for your least needed stat.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So AD&D1 was not perfect as is? You were going to _change_ it? [/silly]
> 
> I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?
> 
> Quasqueton



Hard to say, but the soul and spirit of the revised game would have remained the same. The change might have been likened to that from D&D to AD&D.

For the record UA sold exceptionally well, along with OA bailed TSR out of its cash flow problems at that juncture. Had there been more time it is likely I would have polished and revised a few parts of both these works, bur the exegencies of business prevented that.

Cheerio,
Faey


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 24, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So AD&D1 was not perfect as is? You were going to _change_ it? [/silly]
> 
> I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?
> 
> Quasqueton




I would wager that those who found the spirit of 2e/3e differed too much from 1e would have found Gary's version of 2e more to their liking.  Of course some would have bitched anyway.

Edit: Gary said it better than me.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Back in the 70s there were a cadre of complainers that were never satisfied with anything done to A/D&D in the books or in magazine articles. I said rather crossly, "If we printed and sold the material at the current price on leaves of solid gold, there would be a chorus of those birds whining about the weight."  

 
Gary


----------



## diaglo (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Back in the 70s there were a cadre of complainers that were never satisfied with anything done to A/D&D in the books or in magazine articles. I said rather crossly, "If we printed and sold the material at the current price on leaves of solid gold, there would be a chorus of those birds whining about the weight."
> 
> 
> Gary





hiya.

diaglo "still complaining about Supplement I Greyhawk" Ooi


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> hiya.
> 
> diaglo "still complaining about Supplement I Greyhawk" Ooi



 

That opinion is a minority one for sure. The Greyhawk Supplement to D&D sold in huge numbers with virtually no colmplaints about it's contents.

Of course when I DM OD&D thses days I eschew that particular supplement as well as the others, play the three booklets with a few house rules tossed in  

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Ace32 (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> That opinion is a minority one for sure. The Greyhawk Supplement to D&D sold in huge numbers with virtually no colmplaints about it's contents.
> 
> Of course when I DM OD&D thses days I eschew that particular supplement as well as the others, play the three booklets with a few house rules tossed in
> 
> ...




I'm sure you have addressed this before, but what is it that you usually DM these days? As a younger player, I broke into the system with 3e and therefore have no experience with the older rules. However, all the talk about the feel of older games + the recent threads about old modules has intrigued me

What would you recommend I look at to recreate some of the feel of these older games? Aside from trying to buy out-of-print copies of those games and run them without any revision...

Edit: This may be considered an off-topic post, but considering the thread began with a quote from the Colonel, I hardly think I'm straying by asking him about his game


----------



## diaglo (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> That opinion is a minority one for sure. The Greyhawk Supplement to D&D sold in huge numbers with virtually no colmplaints about it's contents.
> 
> Of course when I DM OD&D thses days I eschew that particular supplement as well as the others, play the three booklets with a few house rules tossed in
> 
> ...




see you came back around.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Back in the 70s there were a cadre of complainers that were never satisfied with anything done to A/D&D in the books or in magazine articles. I said rather crossly, "If we printed and sold the material at the current price on leaves of solid gold, there would be a chorus of those birds whining about the weight."




As they say, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Or, as it usually goes on the Wizards boards, "If WotC included a $20 bill in every [box / book / etc.], people would complain about how it was folded."

I guess it's good to see that, even coming into the fold somewhat late in the game (I was a 2E "baby"), I've merely joined a long line of cantankerous rules-fiddlers. 

I've always wondered what it is about our hobby that breeds this sort of thing?


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Ace32 said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have addressed this before, but what is it that you usually DM these days? As a younger player, I broke into the system with 3e and therefore have no experience with the older rules. However, all the talk about the feel of older games + the recent threads about old modules has intrigued me
> 
> What would you recommend I look at to recreate some of the feel of these older games? Aside from trying to buy out-of-print copies of those games and run them without any revision...
> 
> Edit: This may be considered an off-topic post, but considering the thread began with a quote from the Colonel, I hardly think I'm straying by asking him about his game



As if the Mods here would chastise you or me for getting off the listed subject. After all, this is "Q&A with Gary Gygax"  

I mainly run my latest creation,a  _Lejendary Adventure_ FRPG campaign. The group does play _Metamorphosis Alpha_ now and then with jim Ward as the GM.Now and then I will do a one-off OD&D or OAD&D adventure. DMer one of the former last Satyrday for around four or five hours in fact.

As far as I am concerned, the closest game to AD&D is the _Castles & Crusades_ system from Troll Lord Games. About all that is harringly different in it is AC and to hit numbers. You might want to have a look at it.

Cheers,
Gary

Oops!

Confsed this thread with the one noted. My bad :/


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> see you came back around.
> 
> OD&D(1974) is the only true game.



Heh...

Maybe the rules light, skill-bundle-based Lejendary Adventure game has escaped your attention  

 
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> As they say, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
> 
> Or, as it usually goes on the Wizards boards, "If WotC included a $20 bill in every [box / book / etc.], people would complain about how it was folded."



 

How true, how true...



> I guess it's good to see that, even coming into the fold somewhat late in the game (I was a 2E "baby"), I've merely joined a long line of cantankerous rules-fiddlers.
> 
> I've always wondered what it is about our hobby that breeds this sort of thing?



And I amongst the worst of that lot   ...and I do not generally approve of the fiddling done by others!!!  

In point of fact, every GM worth his salt has at least a small amount of "improvement" to contribute to the game system played.

 
Gary


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> After all, this is "Q&A with Gary Gygax"




Not to nitpick, but no, it's not.  That thread is down the page and around the corner


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Not to nitpick, but no, it's not.  That thread is down the page and around the corner



Caught my error just before reading your post...but it is appreciated anyway!

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Quasqueton has been very consistent in his efforts to correct what he perceives as misperceptions regarding the early days of D&D. I see this thread as another in that long (and noble) line. What's so great about Quasq is that he does so by providing quotes. Actual textual evidence. Which imo is worth more than ten reminiscences, however interesting.




Quoted for truth. Quas has been one of the best and most factual debunkers of nostalgia on this forum, and what's more, he hasn't been unkind or ugly or rude about it.

"Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."

What's funny is the amount of ire I've seen directed at him for it.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Quoted for truth. Quas has been one of the best and most factual debunkers of nostalgia on this forum



 . . . while creating his own propaganda in regard to the current edition and past editions.


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . while creating his own propaganda in regard to the current edition and past editions.




As I said:

What's funny is the amount of ire I've seen directed at him for it.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Quoted for truth. Quas has been one of the best and most factual debunkers of nostalgia on this forum, and what's more, he hasn't been unkind or ugly or rude about it.
> 
> "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."
> 
> What's funny is the amount of ire I've seen directed at him for it.



Caution!

The, "Do as I say, not as I do," rule was very often in operation in the Golden Age of A/D&D (you know, when there were a lot more players than there are now...). Not to say this statement is not applicable today.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . while creating his own propaganda in regard to the current edition and past editions.



Cut him some slacks!

Consider it slyly voicing his own personal opinion, just the same as every other gamer does when given the opportunity.

 
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> As I said:
> 
> What's funny is the amount of ire I've seen directed at him for it.



Not so unusual, strong opinions amongst people with differing views of what is entertaining.

Edition wars are truly an unproductive waste of time.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Not so unusual, strong opinions amongst people with differing views of what is entertaining.
> 
> Edition wars are truly an unproductive waste of time.
> 
> ...




So Gary do you agree with me that 2e sucked and all those who liked it stink of elderberries?



...What?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Not so unusual, strong opinions amongst people with differing views of what is entertaining.
> 
> Edition wars are truly an unproductive waste of time.




To be fair though, unproductive wastes of time is 90% of the internet.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 24, 2007)

*jeez...*



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> ....blahblahblahblah...




Who the hell is this "Col_Pladoh" and what the hell does he know?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> So Gary do you agree with me that 2e sucked and all those who liked it stink of elderberries?



While I know you're kidding, when we transitioned first to 1.5 edition (UA, OA, Krynn, etc) people nagged, when we transitioned to 2e, folks hated it without ever reading any of it. I have never liked 100% of any system, but at least I read them first.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 24, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Who the hell is this "Col_Pladoh" and what the hell does he know?



Some guy who wrote Lejendary Adventure.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Some guy who wrote Lejendary Adventure.




... see? He doesn't even spell legendary right.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> What's funny is the amount of ire I've seen directed at him for it.



No ire here. That is my calm and rational opinion of the subject, just as I'm sure yours is.

The first person to be suspected of bunk is the "debunker."


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> So Gary do you agree with me that 2e sucked and all those who liked it stink of elderberries?
> 
> 
> 
> ...What?



Well of course I do...

No, WAIT! I didn't say that--I couldn't have   

On a relative scale 2E isn't so bad. think of _Tunnels & Trolls _ for example...

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> To be fair though, unproductive wastes of time is 90% of the internet.



Generally so,although one must exclude game playing from that unproductive 90% figure!

Heh,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Who the hell is this "Col_Pladoh" and what the hell does he know?



Listen up, Junior!

There will be no lesse majestie here, a place that wouldn't exist except for me  

 
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> .... I have never liked 100% of any system, but at least I read them first.



So you have too much spare time on your hands?

Hard-core gamers have someone demonstrate the new system...like the GM!

J/K

 
Gary


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Caution! The, "Do as I say, not as I do," rule was very often in operation in the Golden Age of A/D&D (you know, when there were a lot more players than there are now...). Not to say this statement is not applicable today.




You can't see the bald head, but I was one of those players in the Golden Age of A/D&D. Back when AD&D was the main game in town, and it didn't have to compete with World of Warcraft selling 2.4 million copies of its first expansion set during the first 24 hours after it was released.

Quas's point is simply to wipe away some of the nostalgia, and paint a slightly more realistic picture. His point is valid.



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Not so unusual, strong opinions amongst people with differing views of what is entertaining. Edition wars are truly an unproductive waste of time.




Except that his posts, even when attacked, tend to be so entirely devoid of ire, anger or the same sort of slander that gets hurled at him.

I enjoy flamewars. I fully expect people to throw me the bird, accuse me of shooting their dog and act like I should be put in jail.

Quas is actually one of the more reasonable, rational, calm posters on this forum.

Hence, the oddity.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> No ire here. That is my calm and rational opinion of the subject, just as I'm sure yours is. The first person to be suspected of bunk is the "debunker."




Which is why nobody can ever really answer his points, except to attack his character or motives. Yes, I realize that.



			
				Drowbane said:
			
		

> Who the hell is this "Col_Pladoh" and what the hell does he know?




Bahahahahaha!!!

That actually made me guffaw. Thank you.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> ... see? He doesn't even spell legendary right.



Another benighted soul that lacks acumen in regards to trade markability of a name   

 
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Hi Molonel,

A couple of quick comments.

The current version of D&D can not compete with WoW, so I do believe that the plan os to alter it so as to be more like the electronic competition. WE shall see, eh?

Ad for Quas', if he was there then what he says has some weight. If all he is doing is quoting what was written somewhere, secondary source material unquestionably, then it is no more than yet another opinion. Any refutation by one that was there is at least as valid an opinion...

And that is my considered opinion.

 
Gary


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Listen up, Junior!
> 
> There will be no lesse majestie here, a place that wouldn't exist except for me
> 
> ...




Hehehe, my appologies. 

Scolded by the Col, huzzah!



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Bahahahahaha!!!
> 
> That actually made me guffaw. Thank you.




I aim to please.


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> The current version of D&D can not compete with WoW, so I do believe that the plan os to alter it so as to be more like the electronic competition. WE shall see, eh?




That was in response to your comment about how there were more D&D players back in the day. I've never seen an actual number-crunching from any source I consider reliable, in that regard. But the fact is, there are more people playing roleplaying games now than ever before. D&D got the ball rolling, and now has to compete with its own success and the children it spawned in a variety of forms, and methods of delivery. The market that WotC faces now was not the same market that TSR faced.



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Ad for Quas', if he was there then what he says has some weight. If all he is doing is quoting what was written somewhere, secondary source material unquestionably, then it is no more than yet another opinion. Any refutation by one that was there is at least as valid an opinion...And that is my considered opinion.




I think what he says needs to be addressed on the merits of his arguments, rather than by counting his grey hairs.

I see some truth in his claims, and I see more discomfort in the people flinging monkey poo at him rather than considered or reasoned responses.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> But the fact is, there are more people playing roleplaying games now than ever before.



Tabletop RPGs?


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Tabletop RPGs?




I said roleplaying games, and I did not limit it to tabletop.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Hehehe, my appologies.
> 
> Scolded by the Col, huzzah!
> 
> ...



No apologies needed!

Make it kidded back by the Col and who can disagree?

FWIW, the head of Personnel at Fireman's Fund in Chicago used to call me "Junior," and all that kept me from snarling at him was the certainty that he was a loser  So I have kept in my repertoire of annoying comments...

 
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Sorry Molonel,

But you are misinformed.

The peak sales of _Dragon_ Magazine were back in 1983, that number was at well over at 200,000 copies per issue with a pass-around factor of 4.2 readers per copy. That was small compared to the number of estimated players in North America, 5.5 million active that year according to survey data. When 2E was released about 50% of the AD&D regular audience did not buy the game, so TSR lost half of its customer base in one fell swoop. 3E, according to WotC's own surveys has, or had, a maximum of 3.2 million players, that number including those that occasionally engage in RPG activity--the same as was true of the TSR estimate, but the active base was more than 3.2 million.

WorC seems to be expending little in the way of advertising and promotion dollars to recruit new young players unlike TSE that expended a lot of money on TV, radio, and print ads, not to mention all the customer good will events that were sponsored--GenCon and the RPGA most notably, but _Dragon_ Magazine was in that category for many years, say until c. 1978

It is quite noteworthy that comparative sales figures for the PAD&D core rules books and those for 3E have never been released.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I said roleplaying games, and I did not limit it to tabletop.



It's an important distinction that limits your "but the fact is" statement.


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Sorry Molonel, But you are misinformed. The peak sales of _Dragon_ Magazine were back in 1983, that number at 200,000 copies per issue. That was small compared to the number of estimated players in North America, 5.5 million active that year according to survey data. When 2E was released about 50% of the AD&D regular audience did not buy the game, so TSR lost half of its customer base. 3E, according to WotC's own surveys has a maximum of 3.2 million players, that number including those that occasionally engage in RPG activity--the same as was true of the TSR estimate, but the active base was more than 3.2 million. It is noteworthy that comparative sales figures for the PAD&D core rules books and those for 3E have never been rel;eased.




You need to read what I'm saying more carefully. I said roleplaying games, and I did not limit it to tabletop, nor to D&D alone. I still haven't seen compiled sales figures which would account for all roleplaying games, including the PDF market, nor the number of players in every RPG genre. You're only addressing D&D in your comments here, and as I pointed out, D&D is not the only shop on the block, anymore.

World of Warcraft is a roleplaying game. It might not be the sort of game you prefer to play, but it's a roleplaying game. It sold 2.4 million copies worldwide during the first 24 hours after the release of its first expansion. Add D&D to that? Add World of Darkness players? Add every small independent game company, and games like C&C, CoC, GURPS, whatever, and you have more people playing roleplaying games now than ever before.

I am not misinformed on this subject. You are in error.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It's an important distinction that limits your "but the fact is" statement.




Since you noticed the distinction, my assumption that you were smart enough to make it was evidently well-founded.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I said roleplaying games, and I did not limit it to tabletop.



There are no electronic role-plating games, so the vast bulk of play is paper & pencilm albeit online chatroom gamnes are growing in popularity.

All the so-called MMP online games are not role-playing at all. To whom do the participants play a role, and who respoinds to that? No one of course, so those are seek & destroy missions or the like.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Molonel,

I find parsing words and picayune quibbling a worse waste of time than is outright disputation regarding which game or game edition is "superior."

'Nuff said   

Gary


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 24, 2007)

I can't say if a MMO is a real RPG.  Some people do role play in them, lightly.  But they IME are the vast minority.   I don't consider them a role playing games when I talk of RPG's though.  Some do but I think the differences are pretty vast.


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> There are no electronic role-plating games, so the vast bulk of play is paper & pencilm albeit online chatroom gamnes are growing in popularity. All the so-called MMP online games are not role-playing at all. To whom do the participants play a role, and who respoinds to that? No one of course, so those are seek & destroy missions or the like.




That is certainly your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

But there most certainly ARE electronic roleplaying games.

They are called MMORPGs for a reason.

I have a friend who maintains a Neverwinter Nights server, and he puts just as much time into designing adventures and modules as I do. His group is more far-flung, and they come from all over the world. Throw in a Ventrilo server? The only thing you don't have is Mt. Dew and Cheetos.



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Molonel, I find parsing words and picayune quibbling a worse waste of time than is outright disputation regarding which game or game edition is "superior."




Then you have every right to spend your time in a more productive manner.

The points I raised, however, were not mere word-parsing nor picayune quibbling.


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I can't say if a MMO is a real RPG. Some people do role play in them, lightly.  But they IME are the vast minority.  I don't consider them a role playing games when I talk of RPG's though. Some do but I think the differences are pretty vast.




It's certainly a valid question. But if we're going to consider what is a "true" roleplaying game, and discount games that are merely "seek & destroy missions" then doesn't that eliminate rather a lot of the gaming experiences we've enjoyed and talked about, here?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You need to read what I'm saying more carefully.



Perhaps you need to make your assertions more carefully.


> I said roleplaying games, and I did not limit it to tabletop, nor to D&D alone. I still haven't seen compiled sales figures which would account for all roleplaying games, including the PDF market, nor the number of players in every RPG genre. You're only addressing D&D in your comments here, and as I pointed out, D&D is not the only shop on the block, anymore.



D&D is, and always has been, the far and away market leader in every respect. That was one of the driving premises of the OGL.


> World of Warcraft is a roleplaying game.



World of Warcraft is a video game. There is a genre of video games commonly called "RPGs" but that is not the same as D&D or any other actual role-playing game. I love the Elder Scrolls series of video games, and quite enjoy the extant they allow me to "role-play" within the context of their game engines, but they are not RPGs; they are video games.


> It sold 2.4 million copies worldwide during the first 24 hours after the release of its first expansion.



There is no doubting the rising popularity of video games and that industry's sucdess. But it really isn't relevant to the industry that is the subject of this online community: D&D, and role-playing games in general.


> Add D&D to that? Add World of Darkness players? Add every small independent game company, and games like C&C, CoC, GURPS, whatever, and you have more people playing roleplaying games now than ever before.



You might be on track if you start with D&D and add what you mentioned, but starting with video game "RPGs" is wholly inaccurate.


> I am not misinformed on this subject. You are in error.



It's not a matter of being misinformed on this subject; you are conflating too distinct entertainment media to pad your numbers to reach the assertion that "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before." You are in error that video games are role-playing games.



> Since you noticed the distinction, my assumption that you were smart enough to make it was evidently well-founded.



Since you understand the distinction, it is disingenuous for you to group them together to back your assertion.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 24, 2007)

Sorry Gary, but you're the father (or perhaps grandfather) of EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lineage and all the rest. Even if you don't like the bawling brats you spawned.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

As I mentioned before, parsing words.

One plays a role to an audience. In game form that mans at least a Game Master that responds in kind according to the words spoken. More generally the audience for such play includes one or more additional player participants.

The time one spends preparing for play is immaterial to the game form. the game cam be wholly extemporaneous.

Those are facts, not opinions. When MMPs have AI that is capable of raking over the role of the GM they will be actual RPGs. As thay stand they mosrt assuredly are not, as there is no Game Master or other audience to which to role-play, affect the course of the game bydoing so.

I will waste no more time on this subject.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Perhaps you need to make your assertions more carefully.




Ultimately, what separates me from Col_Pladoh and you is a philosophical difference of what constitutes a roleplaying game. I knew my assertion would raise some hackles, and I could have scripted some of the replies myself.

You were smart enough to pick up on it.

So no, I didn't need to.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> D&D is, and always has been, the far and away market leader in every respect. That was one of the driving premises of the OGL.
> World of Warcraft is a video game. There is a genre of video games commonly called "RPGs" but that is not the same as D&D or any other actual role-playing game. I love the Elder Scrolls series of video games, and quite enjoy the extant they allow me to "role-play" within the context of their game engines, but they are not RPGs; they are video games.




Okay, so you believe that MMORPGs are not roleplaying games, nor that video games can be considered RPGs.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has yet produced any sort of numbers to account for all RPGs, either. Please include the PDF market, C&C, CoC, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, everything that comes out of Malhavoc Press, everything sold by every independent publisher and everyone who uses the SRD to play using OpenRPG or through chat lines on IRC or AOL private rooms.

Then, you'll have an argument. Until then, merely comparing sales figures from "D&D back when it was king" to "D&D in a market saturated with other games" is ... how do you say? ... padding the numbers.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> There is no doubting the rising popularity of video games and that industry's sucdess. But it really isn't relevant to the industry that is the subject of this online community: D&D, and role-playing games in general.




You are mistaken. It is quite relevant.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You might be on track if you start with D&D and add what you mentioned, but starting with video game "RPGs" is wholly inaccurate.




I didn't start with video games. I merely included them as a form of RPGs.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of being misinformed on this subject; you are conflating too distinct entertainment media to pad your numbers to reach the assertion that "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before." You are in error that video games are role-playing games.




I eagerly await you backing that statement up, rather than repeating it many times over.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Since you understand the distinction, it is disingenuous for you to group them together to back your assertion.




Nope. There are video games that are RPGs. I stand on that statement.

And there are more people now playing RPGs than ever before.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Sorry Gary, but you're the father (or perhaps grandfather) of EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lineage and all the rest. Even if you don't like the bawling brats you spawned.



Hey!

I never said I didn't like computer games. The fact is I find them far roo compelling, so that I want to play to the exclusion of work, reading, socializing, etc.   

 
Gary


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, parsing words.




No more so than you.

When you say, "That is NOT a roleplaying game" and "This IS a roleplaying game" then you are defining terms.

I disagree with you, obviously. I have respected your opinion, though, rather than dismissing them as tricks of phrase.



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> One plays a role to an audience. In game form that mans at least a Game Master that responds in kind according to the words spoken. More generally the audience for such play includes one or more additional player participants. The time one spends preparing for play is immaterial to the game form. the game cam be wholly extemporaneous. Those are facts, not opinions. When MMPs have AI that is capable of raking over the role of the GM they will be actual RPGs. As thay stand they mosrt assuredly are not, as there is no Game Master or other audience to which to role-play, affect the course of the game bydoing so.




When a friend of mine designs adventures or quests onto his Neverwinter Nights server, he is most assuredly the GM. Everything that exists in that world is there because he put it there. 

Dialogue is certainly more restricted.

But roles are being played before an audience.

There are certainly examples of tabletop RPGs which do not require a GM, like Mythic Game Master Emulator:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=7696


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> World of Warcraft is a roleplaying game. It might not be the sort of game you prefer to play, but it's a roleplaying game. It sold 2.4 million copies worldwide during the first 24 hours after the release of its first expansion.
> I am not misinformed on this subject. You are in error.




I spent many many hours playing WoW and I can assure you despite what they print on the side of the box it is most certainly not a role playing game. Some players do engage in a very limited form of role playing in game but nothing comparable to dnd or wod for that matter.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 24, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> One plays a role to an audience. In game form that mans at least a Game Master that responds in kind according to the words spoken. More generally the audience for such play includes one or more additional player participants.
> 
> ...
> 
> Those are facts, not opinions.




Well, my online "MM"ORPG experience goes back to the original Neverwinter Nights on AOL (unfortunately in its latter days), and my PnP RPG experience goes back a little farther.

In NWN, I joined a guild (the Servants of Mystery), and together, both in the game and outside of it, we roleplayed members of the Neverwinter temple to Mystra, Goddess of Magic.  In truth, I got more into-character in the online venue than I ever did in my face-to-face roleplaying at the time, where, surprisingly enough, our encounters were largely similar: a break-in-the-door-and-fight-the-badguys style of playing which, I'm certain, just about everyone has indulged in from time to time.

While, in most cases, the monsters and other set encounters didn't treat us any differently than the gentlemen and ladies playing Cyricists or Banites or Purple Dragon Knights, the other players certainly did, and occasionally a staff gamemaster would take a more active role in the way things played out (taking on and roleplaying Lord Nasher, hosting events, joining a combat, etc.).

By the facts you laid out, it would seem that you would classify NWN as a roleplaying game during the time in which a gamemaster was actually present, and as a non-RPG when he or she [or they] wasn't [weren't].  So, NWN on AOL was, simultaneously, both an RPG and not an RPG?

The same situation (with, admittedly, prettier graphics and a more real-time resolution system) occurs in just about every modern MMORPG (where GM-lead events are often a major draw).  Many people (especially those I play with) roleplay quite happily to the other players as the audience; what do you see as special about the need for a D/GM as part of the audience?


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I spent many many hours playing WoW and I can assure you despite what they print on the side of the box it is most certainly not a role playing game. Some players do engage in a very limited form of role playing in game but nothing comparable to dnd or wod for that matter.




But ultimately, what you're saying is that it is a roleplaying game, and some people do use it for roleplaying, but it's not LIKE D&D or WoD.

Some people just search and destroy. I get that part.

I've also been in D&D gaming groups, both many years ago, and recently, where DMs marched stuff out of the Monster Manual, and we killed it.

The distinctions being made here are just not as clear cut as some folks are asserting.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> But ultimately, what you're saying is that it is a roleplaying game, and some people do use it for roleplaying, but it's not LIKE D&D or WoD.
> 
> Some people just search and destroy. I get that part.
> 
> ...



No its not just a case of some people use it for search and destroy pretty much everyone. in fact the sort of role playing going on in the game is so limited it could be achieved with for example a telephone. Shall we now add all the telephones in the world to your total because a few people might be able to use it for some ultra-limited form of role playing?


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> No its not just a case of some people use it for search and destroy pretty much everyone. in fact the sort of role playing going on in the game is so limited it could be achieved with for example a telephone. Shall we now add all the telephones in the world to your total because a few people might be able to use it for some ultra-limited form of role playing?




So if "search and destroy" makes something not a roleplaying game, how much of D&D is not a roleplaying game?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 24, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> No its not just a case of some people use it for search and destroy pretty much everyone.




Doesn't that basically describe, say, the first couple years of D&D that everyone plays, though?

I know it certainly applied to mine! (And, additionally, I know I got *much* cooler stuff while playing D&D than I ever did playing WoW.)

In fact, we used to joke about my DM's uncle's character Red.  He'd been reincarnated / rerolled / raised so many times, he was on, I believe, Red 12 or so.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> So if "search and destroy" makes something not a roleplaying game, how much of D&D is not a roleplaying game?




I said WoW is no more an RPG than telephone this has nothing to do with search and destroy.


----------



## molonel (Jul 24, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I said WoW is no more an RPG than telephone this has nothing to do with search and destroy.




What makes WoW *not* a roleplaying game, though?

That's what I'm asking.

You've said that sometimes the roleplaying element is minimal. Great. WoD players like to make fun of D&D players as basically being COMBATCOMBATCOMBATalittleroleplayingCOMBATCOMBATCOMBAT.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> What makes WoW *not* a roleplaying game, though?
> 
> That's what I'm asking.
> 
> You've said that sometimes the roleplaying element is minimal. Great. WoD players like to make fun of D&D players as basically being COMBATCOMBATCOMBATalittleroleplayingCOMBATCOMBATCOMBAT.




So why aren't you counting all telephones in your estimate of roleplaying games after all the same quality and quantity? Because a telephone is not a role playing game nor is wow it is for rpg purposes simply a mode of communication.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 24, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Ultimately, what separates me from Col_Pladoh and you is a philosophical difference of what constitutes a roleplaying game.



This distinction between our views is not philosophical; it is factual. 


> Okay, so you believe that MMORPGs are not roleplaying games, nor that video games can be considered RPGs.



My belief has nothing to do with me taking note of that fact that they are not.


> Neither you, nor anyone else, has yet produced any sort of numbers to account for all RPGs, either. Please include the PDF market, C&C, CoC, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, everything that comes out of Malhavoc Press, everything sold by every independent publisher and everyone who uses the SRD to play using OpenRPG or through chat lines on IRC or AOL private rooms.



I noted that this is the area in which number of players is relevant; that is,  _sans_ video game players. You're quite right that all thes players should be taken into account (adding them all up may give truth to your assertion); however, the fact that D&D is, and always has been, (without contest) far and away the market leader in the RPG industry suggests that the "other RPG" numbers will not add much to the total, comparatively. That is, using the numbers of D&D players from 1982 (or any prior era) to compare to the number of D&D players to the modern era is a useful comparison to gauge popularity of role-playing games. 

I believe it is an accurate paraphrase of Ryan Dancey to say, "D&D _is_ the RPG industry."





> I eagerly await you backing that statement up, rather than repeating it many times over.



Ditto.



> Nope. There are video games that are RPGs. I stand on that statement.



There are video games that are called "RPGs," yes, but they are not actually role-playing games any more than the Madden NFL series of games are actual football games.


> And there are more people now playing RPGs than ever before.



Again, if you mean actual (tabletop) RPGs, we'll need to see the actual numbers . . . you may be correct. If you are lumping video games in with that term . . . it's not really worth trying to discuss this rationally with you.


----------



## molonel (Jul 25, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Ditto.




Let me point something out to you. I've stated that my views are my opinions. I've acknowledged that other people differ in their opinions.

You, on the other hand, have weighed in with this:



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This distinction between our views is not philosophical; it is factual. My belief has nothing to do with me taking note of that fact that they are not.




A fact can be demonstrated and proven. 

You have placed a higher burden of proof upon yourself, and then, failed to meet it.

I've simply stated my opinion.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I noted that this is the area in which number of players is relevant; that is, _sans_ video game players. You're quite right that all thes players should be taken into account (adding them all up may give truth to your assertion); however, the fact that D&D is, and always has been, (without contest) far and away the market leader in the RPG industry suggests that the "other RPG" numbers will not add much to the total, comparatively. That is, using the numbers of D&D players from 1982 (or any prior era) to compare to the number of D&D players to the modern era is a useful comparison to gauge popularity of role-playing games. I believe it is an accurate paraphrase of Ryan Dancey to say, "D&D _is_ the RPG industry."




But how MUCH of the market does it now comprise? That's the question. It is unquestionably smaller than it was.

But, then again, there are now more roleplaying games than ever before.

Let me parse that, because both meanings are equally true:

There are more tabletop games than ever before.

There are more roleplaying games of all varieties than ever before.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> There are video games that are called "RPGs," yes, but they are not actually role-playing games any more than the Madden NFL series of games are actual football games.




That is certainly an assertion.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Again, if you mean actual (tabletop) RPGs, we'll need to see the actual numbers . . . you may be correct.




Like I said, I've never seen anyone compile those numbers.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> If you are lumping video games in with that term . . . it's not really worth trying to discuss this rationally with you.




Well, rational discussions generally have a habit of challenging unspoken or unproveable assumptions.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> So you have too much spare time on your hands?
> 
> Hard-core gamers have someone demonstrate the new system...like the GM!
> 
> ...




The way it always worked back in the old days, the players would be wandering the store, see some cool cover, read some back cover text and decide that was a game we needed to play.

Then they would give me the book and ask to explain it to them once I finished!

I had lots of lazy players.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 25, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Let me point something out to you. I've stated that my views are my opinions. I've acknowledged that other people differ in their opinions.



Assertions of facts are not opinions; that is, they can be correct or incorrect. An incorrect assertion of fact is a factual error.

What you quoted are two separate statements. The first, that our difference on this matter is not philosophical, but factual. That is, philosophy has nothing to do with our disagreement. Our disagreement is whether video game "RPGs" are actually role-playing games (and in turn should be considered as part of the RPG market, number-wise). This is a question of fact. We have conflicting assertions of fact, not statements of philosophical outlook. That is what I mean by factual, not philosophical.

The second statement you quoted is related to the first. Belief has nothing to do with what we are disagreeing about. Our disagreement is on what the fact of the matter is.



> A fact can be demonstrated and proven.



It is encouraging that you understand this.


> You have placed a higher burden of proof upon yourself, and then, failed to meet it.



We have equal burdens of proof because your assertion is one that turns upon fact, not opinion of that fact. I admit that I have not cited criteria  that differentiates video game "RPGs" from actual RPGs (though most anyone with knowledge of both industries should easily see the distinction, _in my opinion_); this too is a factual assertion that may be proved or disproved. It is not a matter of opinion.


> But how MUCH of the market does it now comprise? That's the question. It is unquestionably smaller than it was.



I disagree, and do question it (though this is a factual matter that can be proven or disproved . . . I may be wrong); once again, the OGL is premised upon the demonstrated fact that D&D is the market leader and that any growth in the market adds to the market leader's share. Because of this, using D&D's number of players gives a pretty accurate view of the number of players of role-playing games in general.


> But, then again, there are now more roleplaying games than ever before. Let me parse that, because both meanings are equally true: There are more tabletop games than ever before.



I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring _number of players_ and now you are using _number of games_. 


> There are more roleplaying games of all varieties than ever before.



This is a completely different assertion than "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before."

The shifting sands of your argument and the imprecision of your terms may make this debate ultimately fruitless, in my opinion.


> Like I said, I've never seen anyone compile those numbers.



Compiling the actual numbers of players of actual role-playing games is how to uncover the fact of the matter (numbers that do not include players of video games). Your basic assertion may turn out to be correct. 


> Well, rational discussions generally have a habit of challenging unspoken or unproveable assumptions.



And shaking out precision in the terms we use to make assertions.

[And of course, rational discussions cannot have habits, only tendencies, but that is probably just nitpicking. ]


----------



## molonel (Jul 25, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Assertions of facts are not opinions; that is, they can be correct or incorrect. An incorrect assertion of fact is a factual error. What you quoted are two separate statements. The first, that our difference on this matter is not philosophical, but factual. That is, philosophy has nothing to do with our disagreement. Our disagreement is whether video game "RPGs" are actually role-playing games (and in turn should be considered as part of the RPG market, number-wise). This is a question of fact. We have conflicting assertions of fact, not statements of philosophical outlook. That is what I mean by factual, not philosophical.




Except that the qualities that define a "roleplaying game" are open to interpretation. We aren't dealing with chemical formulae or mathematical equations. God didn't scribe the true definition of a roleplaying game and hand it to Moses. Jesus didn't explain to us what a roleplaying game was in the Sermon on the Mount. There are differing opinions with different starting points and assumptions.

So, yes, this is a philosophical discussion.

You are not going to "prove" in any realistic or believeable sense that a video game cannot be a roleplaying game, especially given that there are people here who have roleplayed in video games, and say so. 

And, I'm willing to be money that you are not going to be convinced that a video game can be a roleplaying game.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The second statement you quoted is related to the first. Belief has nothing to do with what we are disagreeing about. Our disagreement is on what the fact of the matter is.




No, our apparent difference is that I am content to call my opinion what it is: an opinion.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It is encouraging that you understand this.




Ah yes, the glorious height of Enworld dialogue: the shin-kicking under the table.

Stop dancing, and ante up. Or admit that you can't back up the "facts" you assert.

It's just that simple.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> We have equal burdens of proof because your assertion is one that turns upon fact, not opinion of that fact. I admit that I have not cited criteria  that differentiates video game "RPGs" from actual RPGs (though most anyone with knowledge of both industries should easily see the distinction, _in my opinion_); this too is a factual assertion that may be proved or disproved. It is not a matter of opinion.




And, of course, your opinion simply reflects the facts you fail to demonstrate. Yes, we've covered this ground rather thoroughly.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I disagree, and do question it (though this is a factual matter that can be proven or disproved . . . I may be wrong); once again, the OGL is premised upon the demonstrated fact that D&D is the market leader and that any growth in the market adds to the market leader's share. Because of this, using D&D's number of players gives a pretty accurate view of the number of players of role-playing games in general.




Again, you are very good at bald assertions.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I notice how you have shifted your terms. We began measuring _number of players_ and now you are using _number of games_.




No. As a matter of fact, I have said that there are both more overall games, and more overall players.

These are not mutually contradictory ideas, either.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This is a completely different assertion than "there are more people playing role-playing games now than ever before."




No, it is a concurrent truth, and the larger number of games services the larger number of players.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The shifting sands of your argument and the imprecision of your terms may make this debate ultimately fruitless, in my opinion.




As opposed to your tapdancing and refusing to ante up any of your so-called "facts" which don't need to be demonstrated because, well, you said so?

You are drifting in the aether of your own assertions, my friend.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> And shaking out precision in the terms we use to make assertions.




What was that Gary was saying a little while ago about, "Do as I say, not as I do?"

You're providing an excellent demonstration of that habit.


----------



## SavageRobby (Jul 25, 2007)

Thanks, guys, for polluting what was an otherwise interesting thread. I found the insights about UA and early play styles most enlightening, while your quibbling is quite the opposite. Why not start a new thread instead of continuing your pointless "discussion" here?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 25, 2007)

Folks, in the name of civility, I'm going to ask you to please tone down the point-by-point attempts to one-up each other on points and definitions.  This is not a place where one must "win" an argument.  Trying to do so through staccato repetition of points you've already stated does not make this a nice place to discuss things.

I suggest folks ought to remember that agreeing to disagree is a viable alternative.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Ad for Quas', if he was there then what he says has some weight. If all he is doing is quoting what was written somewhere, secondary source material unquestionably, then it is no more than yet another opinion. Any refutation by one that was there is at least as valid an opinion...



First, I was "there." I've played and DMed D&D for 27 years. The only version of D&D I haven't played is the original, 1974 edition.

Second, much of what I quote is primary source material: _You_. I've read just about everything you have ever written about D&D -- your rule books, your adventures, your articles, your responses in message board threads, etc. The quote in the opening post is directly from your article in Dragon magazine. All the follow up quotes I've given in this thread are also your own words. In my thread discussing the treasure and experience points in AD&D1 adventure modules, the data all comes from modules listing you as the author.

I've also read (and sometimes quote) a lot of what other people at the time of AD&D1 wrote in Dragon magazine, in TSR-published adventure modules, etc. I figure what people said and wrote at the time is at least as relevant and accurate as what people now are saying now in their reminisces.

Quasqueton


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> It's certainly a valid question. But if we're going to consider what is a "true" roleplaying game, and discount games that are merely "seek & destroy missions" then doesn't that eliminate rather a lot of the gaming experiences we've enjoyed and talked about, here?




I don't view it the same way as Gary but I do agree the games by nature are different enough that I don't lump them together. 

There is such a vast difference between say D&D at a tabletop and an MMOG, the type of experiences they create that I don't put them in the same category. Neverwinter Nights with a DM is different than WoW in most ways too, its seeking to emulate the tabletop using the video game medium way more than an MMO. I've played a lot of MMOG and it just can't scratch the same itch as the tabletop game and its by design.  Pretty much as everyone has to be a star and not just you as is the case in a RPG.  You can't be the one to save the queen, everyone else paid too and they want to do it as well.  There is role playing at times in MMO's, but I've also seen/done rp'ing in Talisman or other board games as well.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> ... Quas's point is simply to wipe away some of the nostalgia, and paint a slightly more realistic picture. His point is valid...




Why is his "point" "valid"?  What exactly _is_ his point?  Is it simply that the old modules had lots of loot, that players back then were 'munchkins' (or 'power gamers', or whatever), etc.?  Big deal.  It seems like a rather uninteresting, petty "point" to devote such energy towards, in multiple threads over multiple years.  

As for the alleged need to "wipe away some of the nostalgia", what kind of moral imperative is there to do this?  (Heaven forbid that people might have positive memories of their early RPG experiences!)  In any case, the fact of the matter is is that many people play 1e AD&D (and OD&D, and Basic/Expert D&D, etc.) _today_, often because they prefer it over 3e.  How can _that_ be "nostalgia"?
 :\ 

As I said earlier in this thread, I can't believe that people devote so much energy to such a pointless debate.  People have their preferences -- in this case, 3e versus 1e AD&D.  Most of the 'points' being made by people here seem to be attempts to give an objective veneer to their subjective preferences.


----------



## TinSoldier (Jul 25, 2007)

Huh.

I've never played a MMORPG, but I've played a few solo computer RPGs, and I certainly do think that they are role-playing-games in every sense of the words. Players can be either roleplayers or munchkins or something in-between.

With all due respect to Col. Pladoh, he is not only the father of RPGs but also the father of CRPGs and MMORPGs. Without D&D I doubt the other two genres would ever exist.

Therefore they are definitely a subset of roleplaying games.

BTW, while I played 1st edition AD&D (as well as the red and blue boxed sets that I started out with) most of my early playing was with the boxed set, by myself, twenty-five years ago or more. And I certainly munchkinned my characters, as many do. I also enjoyed myself immensely playing pretend within the structured rules (even with bending them to the breaking point).

I started learning computer programming around the same time. What were some of the first kinds of things I wanted to program? RPG simulations, of course! And so did many of my friends. The mathematical orientation of computers and the statistical basis of RPGs are a natural match. Not to mention playing a role in which you take actions that you would or could never do in real life.

So yes, MMORPGs and CRPGs *are* roleplaying games. No question in my mind. They come from the same root -- D&D and the wargames that came before them.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 25, 2007)

I roleplayed a character once in Morrowind, a single player crpg. This PC would never steal and in my mind was akin to a lawful evil alignment - nasty, brutal, murderous, hated thieves, tough-minded, unyielding and adhered to strict rules of behaviour.

That's the furthest I've gone, in Morrowind it's quite restrictive if you don't steal - it's by far the easiest way to get ahead. Mostly in crpgs I do whatever it takes to 'win' but I often, maybe always, have some notion of character concept, it's hard not to.

In other words, I do exactly what people do in tabletop rpging - mostly success driven with some character stuff.

Thinking about it, I'm quite surprised myself by how similar my approach is in both types of game.

Oh, and computer roleplaying games are actually called roleplaying games. The name is kind of a giveaway.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 25, 2007)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> What exactly _is_ his point?



Adding scholarship to the edition war, imo.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Adding scholarship to the edition war, imo.




Given that the "war" is inane (is it every going to be "won"?), the need to "add scholarship" to it seems equally inane.

I have to confess that years ago I participated in some battles in this "war".  In retrospect, it was a massive waste of time.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 25, 2007)

Akrasia - having positive memories of the past is perfectly fine.

Having creative history memories of the past and then trying to pass it off as "fact" of how the game was played is a tactic used all too often.  Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.



having played in a deep immersive game back in the day. i can tell you not everyone at the table was into it the same. 

just like today.


----------



## Numion (Jul 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.




I remember approaching everything in 1E as we would a dungeon. It was incredibly funny to go to a village, knock on the door of house #1, attack and steal everything, house #2, rinse, repeat. Our adventuring party was the scourge of the Known World.

We got better. Eventually


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 25, 2007)

At the end of the day this thread failed to prove that Mr. Gygax was a munchkin. 

All it really did was prove once again is just how far people are willing to go to try and cast a bad light on previous editions of the game. Not to mention how quickly expressing displeasure with any component of the current edition gets dragged into an instant edition war.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 25, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of those who tear their shirts over D&D's evolution would have accepted an EGG revision without a problem?




I don't think you have to wonder. Just head over to DF's 1e forum & drop the words "Unearthed Arcana" & stand back. (^_^)

My group was always cautious about what we used from UA, but we embraced 2e wholeheartedly. So, I suspect that--while we may have played a Gygax 2e--we would've grumbled about it more than we did 2e. Although in the end I felt 2e's changes never really delivered on their promises for us. Or for me at least.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Sorry Gary, but you're the father (or perhaps grandfather) of EverQuest, World of Warcraft, Lineage and all the rest.




Yeah. I'd venture that many computer games are still closer to D&D & AD&D than most role-playing games.

The strange thing to me is how much some people's experience with computer games seem to have colored their memories of D&D. Someone will tell me how computer RPGs have completely replaced pen & paper RPGs for them. Upon further inquiry, I find they think of D&D as being nothing more than what the computer games are. When I dig a bit further, however, they start to recall that their D&D games _were_ much more than the computer RPGs.

It's like people forget that there has always been more to the game than the mechanics.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I roleplayed a character once in Morrowind, a single player crpg. This PC would never steal and in my mind was akin to a lawful evil alignment - nasty, brutal, murderous, hated thieves, tough-minded, unyielding and adhered to strict rules of behaviour.
> 
> That's the furthest I've gone, in Morrowind it's quite restrictive if you don't steal - it's by far the easiest way to get ahead. Mostly in crpgs I do whatever it takes to 'win' but I often, maybe always, have some notion of character concept, it's hard not to.
> 
> ...




A marketing term to sell them to the existing fanbase of gamers. 

But I agree with you, there is role-playing in CRPG's like Morrowind, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, etc, way more than in MMO's IME.  I role-played a Jedi in KOTR and a Paladin in BG.  You had moral choices to make, options in dealing with NPC's.  In an MMO you take a quest or not, click to read the script or not.  That is pretty much the It.  Fred the vendor has a quest option, one option and you take it or not, there isn't much else to the games.  Other than killing the same bosses over and over for loot. 

So for me its not the medium of the game but the design that determines if I call it a RPG.


----------



## kaomera (Jul 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Akrasia - having positive memories of the past is perfectly fine.
> 
> Having creative history memories of the past and then trying to pass it off as "fact" of how the game was played is a tactic used all too often.  Having people tell me that "back in the day" everyone was into deeply immersive games, for example, is playing VERY fast and loose with history.



It seems to me that sometimes, at least, someone will recount what I parse as how _they_ played the game, and several other posters will parse it as stating that this was the _only_ way the game was played.

Part of the problem here may be that Quasqueton's original quote:


> As a typically ambitious player, I did what all others of that ilk do: Everything I could do to gain advantage for my PCs and rise in level as rapidly as possible.



does not seem to indicate "munchkin" behavior to me, and apparently to at least some others as well. And there's also the question of purpose: this thread doesn't seem to be replying to that quote, merely putting it up there as "evidence".

Now the whole thread seems to have been a response to uncited gamers who apparently have a very adamant view that all the bad things about D&D are strictly the invention of 3e, and that some earlier edition(s) where a gaming paradise where all of the polyhedrals lay down together and there was no hunger or fear... That _almost_ seems like a rather suspicious thing to have to argue against... Unfortunately I've met enough gamers who have a vehement disdain for all things D&D (regardless of edition), and who feel the need to justify their dislike for the game by badmouthing it and anyone who could be so crass as to actually find any value whatsoever in it, that I actually understand (if not entirely agree with) Quasqueton's position.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 25, 2007)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Why is his "point" "valid"?  What exactly _is_ his point?  Is it simply that the old modules had lots of loot, that players back then were 'munchkins' (or 'power gamers', or whatever), etc.?  Big deal.  It seems like a rather uninteresting, petty "point" to devote such energy towards, in multiple threads over multiple years.
> 
> As for the alleged need to "wipe away some of the nostalgia", what kind of moral imperative is there to do this?  (Heaven forbid that people might have positive memories of their early RPG experiences!)  In any case, the fact of the matter is is that many people play 1e AD&D (and OD&D, and Basic/Expert D&D, etc.) _today_, often because they prefer it over 3e.  How can _that_ be "nostalgia"?
> :\





The point is...the good old days were never as good as folks "remember" them being. Looking over the old modules I have still on the shelf, you had magic items and tons of money stilling in zero level peasant houses....unearthed arcana had two of the most broken classes in the game(cavalier and barbarian) and of course weapon and double weapon specialization.....and lets not forget about bards and psionics.....

The point is really: the good old days were just as much filled with powergaming and munchinkin-ities as they are today. Its not to say you didnt have a great time with friends, becuase we did. Tons of fun. 

But listening to people try and tell me it was better then and less power gaming? You're just flat out wrong.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 25, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> All it really did was prove once again is just how far people are willing to go to try and cast a bad light on previous editions of the game. Not to mention how quickly expressing displeasure with any component of the current edition gets dragged into an instant edition war.




No. What it did was shine the light on th eugly parts of the previous edition, despite the fond memories of it. For all my great memories of 1st, it had some absolutely bad parts to  it. 

Just like today in 3.5.


People's "memories" dont always jive with what actually happened. That is the rub of the matter.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 25, 2007)

carmachu said:
			
		

> The point is...the good old days were never as good as folks "remember" them being.




First, what grounds do you have for making this claim?  How do you _know_ that other people's "good old days" weren't as good as they "remember" them being?  Don't project your own experiences on others.

Second, you obviously _failed_ to read my entire post.  One of my main points is that people still play those old games *today*, and prefer them over the current games.  That's not 'nostalgia' or 'memory'.  They're doing it _today_!  So obviously their preferences simply differ from yours.  By making silly claims about people "misremembering" the "old days" you fail to recognize this fact, and try to present your subjective preference as something more objective than it really is.



			
				carmachu said:
			
		

> But listening to people try and tell me it was better then and less power gaming? You're just flat out wrong.




Um, _I_ never claimed anything of the sort, thus I'm hardly "flat out wrong".  Yet again, you show that you haven't bothered to read what I've posted.

Different people had different gaming styles back then, just as they do today.  Unlike you, I'm not about to claim that I know what proportion of people were "powergamers" in 1982 versus 2007.  I have no idea.  And frankly, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Again, if you mean actual (tabletop) RPGs, we'll need to see the actual numbers . . . you may be correct. If you are lumping video games in with that term . . . it's not really worth trying to discuss this rationally with you.



Rely on the fact that he can not produce any actual numbers.

Your suggested conclusion is one I arrived at yesterday.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The way it always worked back in the old days, the players would be wandering the store, see some cool cover, read some back cover text and decide that was a game we needed to play.
> 
> Then they would give me the book and ask to explain it to them once I finished!
> 
> I had lots of lazy players.



 

So you were the guy that always got stuck, eh? You have more patience than I then for sure. Although I was the one that learned Japanese, Chinese, and Korean chess all the main chess variants and taught them to the others. That goes for most of the board wargames as well. It was only when Iwas spending so much time creating gaming material that I decided "others" could learn the game in question and teach me by doing.

How good it is to have Tom Wham in the group with whom I boardgame  

Now I do wish there were more GMs around...and maybe someone with a big table and lots of painted figures for miniature wargaming...

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

SavageRobby said:
			
		

> Thanks, guys, for polluting what was an otherwise interesting thread. I found the insights about UA and early play styles most enlightening, while your quibbling is quite the opposite. Why not start a new thread instead of continuing your pointless "discussion" here?



Amen!

And my apologies for any part I might have had in instigating the niggling.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> First, I was "there." I've played and DMed D&D for 27 years. The only version of D&D I haven't played is the original, 1974 edition.



Pity you missed that, for it is the most free-wheeling of all versions of the D&D game. OD&D is now the one I prefer to play when I DM.



> Second, much of what I quote is primary source material: _You_. I've read just about everything you have ever written about D&D -- your rule books, your adventures, your articles, your responses in message board threads, etc. The quote in the opening post is directly from your article in Dragon magazine. All the follow up quotes I've given in this thread are also your own words. In my thread discussing the treasure and experience points in AD&D1 adventure modules, the data all comes from modules listing you as the author.
> 
> I've also read (and sometimes quote) a lot of what other people at the time of AD&D1 wrote in Dragon magazine, in TSR-published adventure modules, etc. I figure what people said and wrote at the time is at least as relevant and accurate as what people now are saying now in their reminisces.
> 
> Quasqueton



And so? There is such a thing as reading between the lines, interpreting what is recorded to suit your own particular conception.

While your credentials are not lacking, how many tournaments did you DM? In how many other campaigns did you play?

Quoting from books and articles is not particularly valid when searching for something other than the letter of the game or anecdotal accounts. It is axiomatic that the author is writing for a select audience, setting forth that which is meant to be conveyed, not necessarily how things are in actuality.

As I said some number of posts back, there was a good deal of. "Do as I say, not as I do," in the material you refer to. That I can assure you, because I am the principal author of the early game material amny articles regarding the games and their play.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## carmachu (Jul 25, 2007)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> First, what grounds do you have for making this claim?  How do you _know_ that other people's "good old days" weren't as good as they "remember" them being?  Don't project your own experiences on others.





I'm glad yours were. Personally? I'm having more fun now RPing than I ever did back then.

Granted I'm guilty of generalizations others have made. But the point still stands: there was just as much munchkinism back then, then there is today. People's memories fade over time and forget.

I can pull an old module....and find tons of crap that were in peassants huts. Unearthed arcana. Psionics. Bards. I can go on.

The fact that you, and others had wonderful expereices doesnt change the facts that munchkinism was alive and well back then as it is today. 



> Second, you obviously _failed_ to read my entire post.  One of my main points is that people still play those old games *today*, and prefer them over the current games.  That's not 'nostalgia' or 'memory'.  They're doing it _today_!  So obviously their preferences simply differ from yours.  By making silly claims about people "misremembering" the "old days" you fail to recognize this fact, and try to present your subjective preference as something more objective than it really is.




Those people are in the very tiny minority. MOST people are relying on memory of the day. And it doesnt change the fact people ARE failing to remember the bad of the good old days.



> Different people had different gaming styles back then, just as they do today.  Unlike you, I'm not about to claim that I know what proportion of people were "powergamers" in 1982 versus 2007.  I have no idea.  And frankly, I couldn't care less.




I may not know what proportions did what when. But unlike you, I'm not going to shy away from saying it, munchkinism was just as much alive then as it is now. The fact that you didnt doesnt change that.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> How good it is to have Tom Wham in the group with whom I boardgame




and artist



> Now I do wish there were more GMs around...and maybe someone with a big table and lots of painted figures for miniature wargaming...
> 
> Cheers,
> Gary




ditto. but for my preference for referees.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

As to the matter of what is and isn't role-playing, it seems clear that those that suppose that a crpG is an RPG are confusing role-assumption with role-playing.

When one role-plays it must be to an audience that will be able to respond in some fashion to that acting.

When one engages in a RP Game, then the audience must react in game, respond to the actor, the acting by the player being activity that has an impact on the game's direction and the environment within which it is set. Simply put, there must needs be a a Game Master able to interact with the player or players so as to have valid role-play activity.

I feel quite safe in this assertion, for I wrote the basis for the game form  

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## molonel (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Rely on the fact that he can not produce any actual numbers.




Neither can you. 

In fact, the numbers required to talk about this subject have not been compiled by anyone. Nobody has put together the numbers of independent sellers, PDF sales, and every seller dealing in tabletop RPGs. You've only mentioned D&D sales, while conceding that they are a smaller share of the market than when you ran TSR. How relevant are they, then? The only way to know that is to determine what share of the market they possess. And we can't do that without the numbers you can't provide, either.

And you, rather conveniently, prefer to disregard the millions of games based off of your work that appear on a computer screen. Any attempt to argue with this assumption is trivial wordplay and niggling.

Except when you argue about it.



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Your suggested conclusion is one I arrived at yesterday.




Then don't argue with me through stage whispers.

There are millions of people all over the world playing roleplaying games of many different varieties. More people, in fact, than have ever played roleplaying games in history.

You were one of the pivotal figures in that genre's genesis. Nobody has denied that.

But the number of games that people play, and the ways that they enjoy them, and the means by which those games are experienced, and the number of people playing them is bigger than ever before.

Not smaller.


----------



## molonel (Jul 25, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't view it the same way as Gary but I do agree the games by nature are different enough that I don't lump them together. There is such a vast difference between say D&D at a tabletop and an MMOG, the type of experiences they create that I don't put them in the same category. Neverwinter Nights with a DM is different than WoW in most ways too, its seeking to emulate the tabletop using the video game medium way more than an MMO. I've played a lot of MMOG and it just can't scratch the same itch as the tabletop game and its by design. Pretty much as everyone has to be a star and not just you as is the case in a RPG. You can't be the one to save the queen, everyone else paid too and they want to do it as well. There is role playing at times in MMO's, but I've also seen/done rp'ing in Talisman or other board games as well.




I don't recall saying that they were exactly the same in every way.

You might not put them on the same shelf, certainly. But would you go so far as to say that a video game cannot be a roleplaying game?

We've seen people say that a video game absolutely cannot be a roleplaying game, people who say yes they can and people distinguish between games that can be - like NWN - and games that cannot, like WoW.

I do find it mildy amusing that we have to start lopping off letters from an acronym so that we get "MMOG" and "so-called MMP online games" because it's so hard to use the abbreviation that is actually used to describe them: MMORPG.

And guess what the RPG stands for?



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Why is his "point" "valid"? What exactly _is_ his point? Is it simply that the old modules had lots of loot, that players back then were 'munchkins' (or 'power gamers', or whatever), etc.? Big deal. It seems like a rather uninteresting, petty "point" to devote such energy towards, in multiple threads over multiple years.




And yet, here you reading it. And the threads to discuss it are often multipage, extremely passionate extravaganzas that often get several mod appearances. So even if you disagree with his conclusions, it's a big enough deal for you and a lot of other people, including the founder of the game, to come in and express their opinions.

Seems like a big deal to me.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> As for the alleged need to "wipe away some of the nostalgia", what kind of moral imperative is there to do this?




Moral imperative? That's stating it rather dramatically. It's an internet discussion. Take it for what it is.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> (Heaven forbid that people might have positive memories of their early RPG experiences!)




Again, you're missing the point. 1st Edition AD&D is second on my list of editions. I have extremely good memories of playing the game, and two shelves full of books and modules that I still use for reference materials. Pointing out the warts isn't hating the game, or destroying anything essential.

There are entire forums where you can do to do nothing but discuss how awesome 1st Edition AD&D. In fact, you can't even talk about 3rd Edition and they call it "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named."



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> In any case, the fact of the matter is is that many people play 1e AD&D (and OD&D, and Basic/Expert D&D, etc.) _today_, often because they prefer it over 3e. How can _that_ be "nostalgia"? :\




And they are absolutely free to do so. They can even go to gaming communities that do nothing but talk about how awesome it is, and you are not ALLOWED to talk about 3rd Edition.

But if you're in a forum where people discuss all editions of D&D, so these sorts of discussions are going to come up.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> As I said earlier in this thread, I can't believe that people devote so much energy to such a pointless debate.




There have been forums that tried to contain edition wars discussions in subforums, and finally banned the discussion as verboten. 

And, well, you're contributing energy to the "pointless debate."



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> People have their preferences -- in this case, 3e versus 1e AD&D. Most of the 'points' being made by people here seem to be attempts to give an objective veneer to their subjective preferences.




But that's just the point: they're not. Quas is NOT adding objective veneer to his subjective preferences. People attack HIM, and his motives, but they don't really meet his arguments.

I mean, literally, if you read some of Col_Pladoh's replies, he essentially says, "Well, yes, that's what it SAYS but that's not what we MEANT."


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Hey Mods!

Someone here doesn't seem to be able to follow a pointed suggestion...

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 25, 2007)

Yet despite the title name, after six pages it has still not been proven that Mr. Gygax is or was a munchkin, yes excellent thread clearly no ulterior motive.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The fact that with the 9d6 stat gen system, you are almost guaranteed 3 18's.  Certainly, your prime stats should be above 16.



Well, actually with 9d6 the chance for an 18 is slightly less than 18%. This is a very high chance indeed, but the result is far from being guaranteed.

I don't argue that the *UA* method creates very powerful characters, but I just wanted to set the record straight with regard to the probabilities...


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

When all is said and done the object of a game is to entertain and amuse those participating in its play. In my considerable experience with players, it is generally preferable to them to have a viable character of their choosing with which to adventure. Having a PC with a prime stat of 16 with which to begin play is a desirable thing for the majoprity of players, certainly the vast majority of new players.

When the D&D game was first created, state meant little. As it developed, stats became ever more important to the PCs success and survival.

In these regards I submut that the methods of determining PC stats in the UA work had nothing to do with munchkinism but rather to do with capturing and pleasing player participants. Munchkins miraculously rolled stats of 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, and 10, for Charisma and as proof the numbers were honestly generated, no matter what dice system was used to determine these ratings  

Frankly, IMO the grousing about UA is just another gamers' exercise of their personal opinions of what is "right" and "wrong" in the RPGof their choice. That is something I fully understand, do on occasion myself (even in regards to what I have prevously written), and have no quarrel with. There is no accounting for or disputing of personal tastes.

It goes without saying that my own are impeccable, and all that disagree with them are just plain wrong  

 
Gary


----------



## diaglo (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> When the D&D game was first created, state meant little. As it developed, stats became ever more important to the PCs success and survival.




i again submit that one need only look at Supplement I Greyhawk(1975) as the proof to why stats became so important.

3d6 in order
str
int
wis
con
dex
cha
d6 for hps
0 hps = dead

diaglo "grousing about a game he still plays" Ooi


----------



## Umbran (Jul 25, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> And guess what the RPG stands for?





So much for my suggestions and requests.  Apparently I did not make clear enough the types of behavior that were being troublesome.  Well, now I shall demonstrate by example...

Molonel, please do not post in this thread again.  If you've got a problem or question about that, please e-mail myself or another mod.  Our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 25, 2007)

Since in some ways this has become a branch-out of the Q&A thread, I'll ask Gary:

Did you like that Ability Scores had become so important? Did you have any plans to reduce their importance?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 25, 2007)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Why is his "point" "valid"?  What exactly _is_ his point?  Is it simply that the old modules had lots of loot, that players back then were 'munchkins' (or 'power gamers', or whatever), etc.?  Big deal.  It seems like a rather uninteresting, petty "point" to devote such energy towards, in multiple threads over multiple years.




It may seem uninteresting to you, but the way assertions about 3E descending into munchkinnery keep cropping up, correctives like Quasqueton's posts are a valuable check on ignorance of the game's past. Personally, I found his comparisons of treasure hauls to be quite illuminating, helping me to overcome a misconception about 3E compared to earlier editions. And I thank him for it.

You may not find such things interesting, but then, you don't have to participate in those threads either.


----------



## Halivar (Jul 25, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The fact that with the 9d6 stat gen system, you are almost guaranteed 3 18's. Certainly, your prime stats should be above 16.



Finally! I can play a paladin!

Just kidding... sort of. This seems like a good rolling mechanism for gestalt campaigns.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I do find it mildy amusing that we have to start lopping off letters from an acronym so that we get "MMOG" and "so-called MMP online games" because it's so hard to use the abbreviation that is actually used to describe them: MMORPG.
> 
> And guess what the RPG stands for?




IME most people refer to them as MMO's, rather than MMORPG's.  It's more accurate to me anyway.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Since in some ways this has become a branch-out of the Q&A thread, I'll ask Gary:
> 
> Did you like that Ability Scores had become so important? Did you have any plans to reduce their importance?




This thread should probably be abandoned for non-related questions and move back to the official EGG thread.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i again submit that one need only look at Supplement I Greyhawk(1975) as the proof to why stats became so important.
> 
> 3d6 in order
> str
> ...



As a FWIW...

These days I give a +1 for any stat over 15--no higher bonus, although fighters get +1 added to hit and to damage rather than just +1 to hit for Str. Thus 15+ Int or Wis allows an m-u an additional 1st level spell, a 1st level cleric a spell immediately. 

The PC gets 1 negative HP per level and can survive, so a 1st level is dead only at -2, a 2nd an-3, etc.

And, BTW, I allow elves and halflings to to be stealthy, make a roll vs. Dex. to succeed in a normal use of stalth situation. Dwarves are just dwarves, as i couldn't think of anything special for them that was not already given.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Since in some ways this has become a branch-out of the Q&A thread, I'll ask Gary:
> 
> Did you like that Ability Scores had become so important? Did you have any plans to reduce their importance?



Actually, I found the importance of stats to help differentiate PCs, particularly of the same class, and to facilitate a bit more in-character play.

I was not planning on reducing stat benefits or drawbacks, but I was intending to apply them to a number of monsters other than human NPCs--much as Int affected dragons' spells.

All water under the old bridge now...

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Halivar (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> All water under the old bridge now...



I don't know... I can see OSRIC 2.0: The Pladoh Edition.

It could work.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Billd91,

Do not overlook the rather considerable possibility of loss of magic items due to various attack forms, their failing to save, as well as areas of annti-magic sort where all gornished without a chance of a save. No magic item construction was encouraged, one could not normally buy them, and they were gained only at peril of confronting and defeating an adversary. My players were always short in one department or another...and they had no superheroic capacities to fall back on either.

Another FWIW: Every party of new D&D players that have adventured in the first level of my initial Castle Greyhawk as 2nd level OD&D  PCs did miserably, most being TPKs (around 8 out of 12 total, all but one group losing c. half of their party) because they did not understand the concept of not engaging in combat with a foe that they were unlikelt to defeat, so instead of running away, they stood and fought until it was too late to flee. I must express a certain amount of DMly satisfaction, though, because the great number of PCs defeats have engendered the Old Guard Kobolds as new adversaries to encounter  

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> Finally! I can play a paladin!
> 
> Just kidding... sort of. This seems like a good rolling mechanism for gestalt campaigns.



As a matter of fact, that is how many players felt about the system.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> This thread should probably be abandoned for non-related questions and move back to the official EGG thread.



That is sound advice. I'll try to keep any further responses I make on tioic.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> I don't know... I can see OSRIC 2.0: The Pladoh Edition.
> 
> It could work.



Many a true minchkin would be bewailing the fate of his PC due to "infairness"...such as opponents tougher than the PC party and requiring consideration and thought before undertaking something obviously very dangerous.

 
Gary


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Many a true minchkin would be bewailing the fate of his PC due to "infairness"...such as opponents tougher than the PC party and *requiring consideration and thought before undertaking something obviously very dangerous.*
> 
> 
> Gary




That ain't how we roll in America baby!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Many a true minchkin would be bewailing the fate of his PC due to "infairness"...such as opponents tougher than the PC party and requiring consideration and thought before undertaking something obviously very dangerous.
> 
> 
> Gary




No matter the game, powergaming munchkins always whine when they can't just overpower their foes.


----------



## Dromdol (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> As to the matter of what is and isn't role-playing, it seems clear that those that suppose that a crpG is an RPG are confusing role-assumption with role-playing.
> 
> When one role-plays it must be to an audience that will be able to respond in some fashion to that acting.
> 
> When one engages in a RP Game, then the audience must react in game, respond to the actor, the acting by the player being activity that has an impact on the game's direction and the environment within which it is set. Simply put, there must needs be a a Game Master able to interact with the player or players so as to have valid role-play activity.




I am willing to accept your definition without qualification, however, I don't believe that it follows that MMORPGs are excluded in some way by your definition. Let's track your defining characteristics along with a play experience in an MMORPG (specifically mine, I'll use Lineage 2 as my reference point).

1) When one role-plays it must be to an audience that will be able to respond in some fashion to that acting.

While playing L2, I was an actor with a clear audience. My choices impacted not only myself, but those who were identified by guild tag as my allies. The audience had full range of response, including exclusion/inclusion from grouping, escalating all the way to declarations of inter-guild warfare. Leveling and high quality treasure zones were immensely contested, diplomacy was heated, and wars over prime territory were bitter and vicious. On the positive side, alliances were forged, friendships made, and cross-cultural communication made possible by a strange pidgin language. It meets your criteria as having actors and audience.

2) When one engages in a RP Game, then the audience must react in game...

This was quite so. Attempts to proceed on contested territory provoked a variety of responses - demands for payment, diplomacy, hostility, friendship, anger, all played out within the game both via chat and by direct action.

3) ...respond to the actor, the acting by the player being activity that has an impact on the game's direction...

Definitely present. A single person's actions often had a direct impact on the playing style and tone of the game. Castle's are capturable, city taxes variable based on ownership, leveling grounds "closable". Death is punitive and harsh, sometimes involving massive loss of experience, and running the risk of item destruction, representing hours of in-game investment. Diplomacy was a much better option than hostility in many cases, to avoid the penalties that rash behaviour could provoke. This lead to a shifting set of alliances that could turn and bite at any moment. You might think you knew your allies...

4) ...and the environment within which it is set.

The ability to control territories and zones, to impose taxation, to eliminate player competitions, all seem to me to be indicative of the ability to mold the environment. I'm not sure how many people play L2 these days (I've moved on), but certainly at it's heyday it had several million subscribers. With 3-4 thousand persons per world, there was ample opportunity to interact with other people as actor and as audience with direct, immediate impact on play-style and gameplay. There were people roleplaying thugs and villains, heroes and champions, leaders, and spies, and double-dealers, and assassins, diplomats, and liars...

Doesn't this match your definition of Roleplaying? If not, why not?

All MMORPGs have these qualities to some degree or another, and the person on the other side of that avatar IS your audience, and you ARE the actor. The roles are fluid, with everyone acting and participating in the audience simultaneously. Is it really the limitation that people must talk like Renaissance Faire rejects to roleplay? I mean, I don't summon demons, but I play a warlock in WoW, and other people react to my actions in meaningful ways. How is that less "roleplaying" than if I were at a table with them with a bowl of cheerios and a slice of cold pizza? Don't get me wrong, I like both, and I wouldn't give up the one for the other. I also know that important differences do exist, I just think that denying they meet your definition of "roleplaying" is forcing a false dichotomy.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 25, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To elaborate on my previous post, the chance of getting 3 18's is about 0.2%...


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Hi Dromdol,

Actually, I believe you missed the key part of the definition, and I will restate it here.

In the RPG there is a Game Master that perpares and operates the environment, ajudicates the participation of the players, alters the environment according to the players' characters actions within it, and actively responds to player role-playing by reol-playing all sentient entities encountered in the course of play. The participant Game Master is also able to answer questions and assess and ajudicate actions not anticipated in the game rules or the prepared scenario. This means that all participants can extemporaneously intersct and use innovation within an ever-mutable milieu.

Now it seems to me that WoW and Warcraft III have the lion's share of the MMO market, and neither comes close to standards required for an RPG.

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Numion (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Hi Dromdol,
> 
> Actually, I believe you missed the key part of the definition, and I will restate it here.
> 
> ...




Warcraft III is a real-time strategy game, so no arguments there. WoW doesn't match your definition either, but comes closer. Then again, some mind find your definition of an RPG a bit strict. And still some computer games qualify, didn't Neverwinter have possibility for DMs?


----------



## EightBitAssassin (Jul 25, 2007)

I would say that MMOs such as WoW could be better described as RPG Simulators. They embody most of the mechanical and thematic elements of traditional RPGs but are too limited in scope and content to be defined as an actual RPG. Some video games emulate RPGs better than others, but in the end it's not at all the same experience.

It all comes down to how much control the GM and players have over the game. Time is an obvious issue here. The GM can pause or fast forward time to skip over unnecessary elements or even go back in time and roleplay a flashback scene. 

Improvisation is another issue. In an MMO you cannot be rewarded for having a clever idea. You cannot try anything that is not strictly defined within the boundaries of the game's interface. You can't really do anything but run around, find quests from two dimensional NPCs and grind through repetitive encounters trying to level up. If that's how your D&D sessions are thats fine but theres a lot more potential to roleplaying that your missing out on.

Tabletop RPGs are more than pizza and cheetos. Their more than magic items and skill points and what level you are. RPGs are about having fun with friends, telling a story and being able to look back on the game as something memorable.

I like MMORPGs and all dont get me wrong! As far as video games go their some of the best! But until they find a way to add in even a hint of the level of depth that a tabletop RPG encompasses I consider MMORPGs to stand for "Mundane Mechanical Online Restrictive Paradigm Generators."


----------



## Dromdol (Jul 25, 2007)

EightBitAssassin said:
			
		

> I would say that MMOs such as WoW could be better described as RPG Simulators.




Or maybe both RPGs and MMORPGs are reality simulators? Aren't both attempting to allow you to project yourself into a fantastic world with interactivity?




> You can't really do anything but run around, find quests from two dimensional NPCs and grind through repetitive encounters trying to level up. If that's how your D&D sessions are thats fine but theres a lot more potential to roleplaying that your missing out on.




Did you read my post above? I don't know your experience in an MMO, I can't comment on that, but I know my own experience. I've interacted with dozens, even hundreds, of fellow players to achieve goals. I've run afoul of powerful alliances that were capable of reacting to me in a very real fashion. Hardcore PvP isn't for everyone, but deriding MMOs as two-dimensional and repetitive grinds is dismissing a huge portion of the player base that participates in PvP activities - activities with actors and audiences, with real consequences, and with as much emotional reality and depth as the very real players on the other side of those avatars.



> RPGs are about having fun with friends, telling a story and being able to look back on the game as something memorable.




So when I'm on vent doing a castle siege with fifty or sixty guildmates, coordinating and captaining divisions of players into their roles, receiving and transitting orders, living, dying, fighting, and thinking on an imagined battlefield with friends, enemies, passing acquaintances, allies, and traitors alike, I'm not having fun with my friends, I'm not seeing a good story, and I'm not developing a memorable experience? I beg to differ.

I've been in tabletop games that were little more than hack'n'slash fests with no depth. How many old 1st ed. modules were little more than a series of traps and beasties with a bare semblance of a plot, excusing rampaging dungeoneering and not much else? I know those were some of my first experiences with roleplaying thirty years ago. If they were "roleplaying" then how is an MMO any different? Some of those were immensely fun, for certain, but they had no more (if as much) depth as a good MMORPG.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

EightBitAssassin said:
			
		

> I would say that MMOs such as WoW could be better described as RPG Simulators. They embody most of the mechanical and thematic elements of traditional RPGs but are too limited in scope and content to be defined as an actual RPG. Some video games emulate RPGs better than others, but in the end it's not at all the same experience.
> 
> It all comes down to how much control the GM and players have over the game. Time is an obvious issue here. The GM can pause or fast forward time to skip over unnecessary elements or even go back in time and roleplay a flashback scene.
> 
> ...



Hear, hear!

I couldn't have said it better if I spent a lot of time and effort attempting it!

Ciao,
Gary


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 25, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Hear, hear!
> 
> I couldn't have said it better if I spent a lot of time and effort attempting it!
> 
> ...




Might I say that I agree as well?

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 25, 2007)

Let's posit an MMO where all sentient beings are actually player characters, with only animals, golems and similar sorts of entities controlled by the computer. The environment can change from time to time due to player action for example houses can be built or dungeons opened that were previously closed. The game has a good physics engine so objects can be moved around and damaged, PCs can jump and swim and fall off high objects and ride horses.

A game like this would be quite feasible, in fact it might already exist. Is it a roleplaying game? Does there have to be a human GM adjudicating every action in order for it to be a rpg and, if so, why?


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Speaking of wasting time, the attempts to rationalize non-RPGs, "computor RPG simulators," as something they are not, is that as far as I am concerned...bootless.

Oddly enough, when I have been interviewed by major computer publications and mention that computer and MMO games are not actually role-playing at all I have gotten agreement, nary a hint of frantic disputatiion.

That ends my say on this matter.

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 25, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> IME most people refer to them as MMO's, rather than MMORPG's.  It's more accurate to me anyway.



A Google search for MMO gives 15,800,000 hits. For MMORPG it's 29,700,000.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> A Google search for MMO gives 15,800,000 hits. For MMORPG it's 29,700,000.



Whoo-hoo!

 
Gary


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 25, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Let's posit an MMO where all sentient beings are actually player characters, with only animals, golems and similar sorts of entities controlled by the computer. The environment can change from time to time due to player action for example houses can be built or dungeons opened that were previously closed. The game has a good physics engine so objects can be moved around and damaged, PCs can jump and swim and fall off high objects and ride horses.
> 
> A game like this would be quite feasible, in fact it might already exist. Is it a roleplaying game? Does there have to be a human GM adjudicating every action in order for it to be a rpg and, if so, why?



If what you are asking is it possible for a video game to become sufficiently advanced to be an actual role-playing game, the answer is: maybe. The limiting factor in your example is that for all sentient beings in the game to be actual human players, that means all the blacksmiths, stable boys, farmers, harlots, beggers, as well as the king, the evil high level undead sorcerer, etc. would all have to be controlled by human players. Anyone want to sign up to play the stable boy?

Before a video game could be seriously considered a role-playing game, the game engine would have to be so advanced as to allow players to do practically anything (within constraints of the fantasy universe's physical laws and any genre emulation considerations), and have AI so advanced that the NPC actors would behave such that one could not tell they were computer controlled and scripted. The first is far more feasable than the second (and still not something that can be foreseen at the current level of development). It is doubtful that a video game engine will ever be this advanced because of the astronomical development that would be required to create it. 

I love the game Morrowind, particularly how open-ended it is and how much choice there is within the game. I enjoy how I am able to "role-play" to the extent allowed by the game engine, but it is not itself a role-playing game because of its limits.

That is the difference between role-playing games and RPG style video games.

I hope my response doesn't violate Umbrian's warning to me.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 25, 2007)

I like both books and movies..

I tend to prefer books, and normally if I've read the book of the movie, I'm disappointed by the movie...

It's that whole, no matter how great a director, he or she is never going to match what I see in my head concept...

I'd wager a guess that online and video type RPGs, and tabletop RPGs function in a similar way.


There will always be those who prefer one over the other, or like them both, but the two will remain as separate entities.

At least thats my thought.


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 25, 2007)

You're probably not going to get a good story out of an MMO.  You can have fun and everything, but "LOL my guild raided Ragnarosh last night it wuz EPIC!!! I got leet dropz" isn't a story.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> If what you are asking is it possible for a video game to become sufficiently advanced to be an actual role-playing game, the answer is: maybe. The limiting factor in your example is that for all sentient beings in the game to be actual human players, that means all the blacksmiths, stable boys, farmers, harlots, beggers, as well as the king, the evil high level undead sorcerer, etc. would all have to be controlled by human players. Anyone want to sign up to play the stable boy?




Is there really any meaningful difference between a stable boy that is algorithmically controlled, one which doesn't appear but is understood to be there, and one which the GM describes as, "He's just a stableboy; he doesn't know anything about your quest and isn't particularly interested in the fourth band of ruffians to come through town this week; can we get back to the Duke's party now?"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Brazeku said:
			
		

> You're probably not going to get a good story out of an MMO.  You can have fun and everything, but "LOL my guild raided Ragnarosh last night it wuz EPIC!!! I got leet dropz" isn't a story.




That's a very reductionist view of the possible stories to come out of an MMO*RPG*.

How about, "Hey, remember that time we captured Castle Horgraden and held it for an entire month against [our enemies]?"

Or, "Hey - remember Erron and Julhae's wedding at sunset overlooking the Isles?"


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Is there really any meaningful difference between a stable boy that is algorithmically controlled, one which doesn't appear but is understood to be there, and one which the GM describes as, "He's just a stable boy; he doesn't know anything about your quest and isn't particularly interested in the fourth band of ruffians to come through town this week; can we get back to the Duke's party now?"




Well yes... Because no matter what, even if that stable boy is just a stable boy, and not supposed to offer anything very meaningful to the story, there are infinite ways the characters CAN make him a part of the story in a tabletop; the algorithmically controlled stable boy is still ultimately only able to do what it is programed to.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 26, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> That's a very reductionist view of the possible stories to come out of an MMO*RPG*.
> 
> How about, "Hey, remember that time we captured Castle Horgraden and held it for an entire month against [our enemies]?"
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Patryn of Elvenshae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Patryn of Elvenshae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Look, while that is one possibility (say, EQ), it's not the only possibility.

Specifically, I'm thinking more of an NWN server or a battleground in a more PvP-oriented game [where the only other participants *are* other players; AIs need not apply!].

The fact that you immediately assume that this is the only possibility leads me to believe that you don't have a lot of experience in modern MMO*RPG*s.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 26, 2007)

In some ways, a human GM can make a game a lot more limited. I very much enjoy sandbox-style PC games such as Morrowind or World Of Warcraft because I'm free to go anywhere I want, and to some extent do whatever I want - attack guards and steal things or fight crime and catch criminals; make money or gamble it away; join one faction or another. I'm not limited by a DM who's only allowing good alignments. I'm not limited by the adventure he has prepared for this evening. I'm not limited by what the other players want to do. Because really in a face-to-face roleplaying game, although we may claim imagination is the only limit, the other players and their desires are a huge limiting factor. I can't really go off and become a gladiator if the other players want to do a dungeon delve. I can't do a dungeon delve when the DM has a murder mystery ready.

In all computer games there are creative human beings coming up with plots and scenarios - the developers. A whole team in fact, working full time. So there's often more to do, in a sense there are more options, but within each scenario the interactivity is more limited.

Another benefit with the computer is the lack of bias or arbitrariness. The DM who won't let his  'Mary Sue' NPC lose and fudges things to ensure it doesn't happen. The DM who has it in for a particular player. The DM who has a peculiar view of reality. Aside from bugs, with a PC game one can be sure the rules are always followed.


----------



## Dromdol (Jul 26, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> You mean hey remember that time we captured Castle X and held it for 5 minutes before the soldiers started to respawn. That the guild X came along and started to greif us because they wanted the Kings drops just like we did. That son of a gun playing the Thief snuck up and looted the King's corpse after we did all the work clearing up to the fight and beating the encounter.





No. I mean, "remember the time we fought tooth and nail to take the castle, despite two allied guilds stabbing us in the back? Or how, after holding it for two months, and repelling multiple attacks, we were sold out by another ally for the price of a lesser castle? How we fought side by side with a rival guild to hold it, fighting against overwhelming odds as they came through the gates. Again. And again. Remember the last desperate struggle in the throne room, where one of our captain's single handedly dropped over a dozen invaders before they finally brought him down? Remember the mad rush to regroup, the desperate stab at regaining our foothold? Remember that? Remember a month later when we rallied enough support to overthrow a different castle from our enemy alliance, but a merc troop grabbed the throne? Not that THEY held it for long, as they were perpetually unable to forge lasting alliances...or how about when we bloodied ourselves tryin to take..."

I'm not talking about fights with respawning NPCs. I'm talking real players fighting other real players for valuable real estate. Winning, and losing, and forging memories of friendship, and loyalty, and betrayel. People that think MMORPGs are nothing but one more raid on Rags need to broaden their horizons, there are other worlds than these.

In any event, this thread needs a warning sign:

"Here be dinosaurs."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 26, 2007)

When I think about what I enjoy about human rpgs it's not really the variety of interaction because it's pretty limited.

GM comes up with mission. We solve mission by overcoming obstacles, dealing with NPCs and defeating monsters. Obstacles are overcome by using magic or making skill checks. With NPCs we talk to them, bribe or threaten. (Over and over, threats and bribes, bribes and threats, a computer could handle it very easily.) With monsters we hide, fight or run. Mostly fight.

Sure, we have the potential to do something weird, like befriend a monster or burn down the forest. But it seldom if ever happens.

By far the main benefit of traditional games for me is the social interaction in and around the game, the funny voices we put on, the humour, rather than the amazing versatility of the players and GM.


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Dromdol said:
			
		

> No. I mean, "remember the time we fought tooth and nail to take the castle, despite two allied guilds stabbing us in the back? Or how, after holding it for two months, and repelling multiple attacks, we were sold out by another ally for the price of a lesser castle? How we fought side by side with a rival guild to hold it, fighting against overwhelming odds as they came through the gates. Again. And again. Remember the last desperate struggle in the throne room, where one of our captain's single handedly dropped over a dozen invaders before they finally brought him down? Remember the mad rush to regroup, the desperate stab at regaining our foothold? Remember that? Remember a month later when we rallied enough support to overthrow a different castle from our enemy alliance, but a merc troop grabbed the throne? Not that THEY held it for long, as they were perpetually unable to forge lasting alliances...or how about when we bloodied ourselves tryin to take..."
> 
> I'm not talking about fights with respawning NPCs. I'm talking real players fighting other real players for valuable real estate. Winning, and losing, and forging memories of friendship, and loyalty, and betrayel. People that think MMORPGs are nothing but one more raid on Rags need to broaden their horizons, there are other worlds than these.
> 
> ...





Hey you whippersnapper, get off my volcano!

Look, I've played a lot of MMOs.  EQ, EQ2, WoW, Vanguard, SWG, whatever that one with 3 groups fighting is called (been a long time).  Oh yeah, also Dofus and UO.  That's 8.  And every time, I've become bored after perhaps a month or two. 

I could write a giant list of problems, but it all boils down to this: basically, the game world I'm engaging in within the MMO is simply no match for the one in my head.  For example, the whole castle thing you went on about?  I don't care.  That's boring to me. 

Here's the kicker- although it is possible in an MMO, through character roleplaying, to assign meaning to holding this castle or that- it always feels inauthentic- like it's something tacked onto the world, and not a part of it.  RP servers just feel, well, _ridiculous_ to me.  Lord Magickwyng McFaeriedrow III may very well think that throwing a bunch of ye's in his text is character content, but I sure don't.

Disagree if you want, but don't say it's because of my lack of experience or because I'm a dinosaur.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

> Speaking of wasting time, the attempts to rationalize non-RPGs, "computor RPG simulators," as something they are not, is that as far as I am concerned...bootless.




That pun is just ... beautiful.  *wipes away a tear*  

Nice.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> When I think about what I enjoy about human rpgs it's not really the variety of interaction because it's pretty limited.
> 
> GM comes up with mission. We solve mission by overcoming obstacles, dealing with NPCs and defeating monsters. Obstacles are overcome by using magic or making skill checks. With NPCs we talk to them, bribe or threaten. (Over and over, threats and bribes, bribes and threats, a computer could handle it very easily.) With monsters we hide, fight or run. Mostly fight.



I will refrain from seriously commenting on how what you describe seems to dovetail with the characterization of 3e as "videogamey."


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 26, 2007)

(light humor)

  Character (fails his save by 1 in old edition, makes it by 1 in new edition)

  Player:  Safe!
  DM:  He's out.
  Player:  Oh no he's not.

  DM:  (takes out a bat)

  WHAP!!!

  Character:  Eeeeewwww.  Now he's out ...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I will refrain from seriously commenting on how what you describe seems to dovetail with the characterization of 3e as "videogamey."




Yes, but, what he said, other than including the words "skill checks" applies equally to all editions.

IME.  YMMV.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Brazeku said:
			
		

> For example, the whole castle thing you went on about?  I don't care.  That's boring to me.




Similarly, the way in which a group I belonged to very, very briefly approached the WoD games was also exceptionally boring to me.

And yet, I don't believe I've ever accused them of not roleplaying ...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

> Here's the kicker- although it is possible in an MMO, through character roleplaying, to assign meaning to holding this castle or that- it always feels inauthentic- like it's something tacked onto the world, and not a part of it. RP servers just feel, well, ridiculous to me. Lord Magickwyng McFaeriedrow III may very well think that throwing a bunch of ye's in his text is character content, but I sure don't.




That is, however, a slightly different thing than saying flat out that CRPG's aren't role playing games.  That you or I don't like it is beside the point.  Like or not like doesn't enter into it, other than from our own personal preferences.  Like it or not, it is still role playing.  Maybe not the roleplaying either of us is into (I too dislike MMORPG's), but, it's still playing a role.  

I guess the question boils down to - is a DM (or GM) required in order to be playing a role playing game?

((On a side note, I'm very much on the fence on this one.  I just find the question interesting))


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Similarly, the way in which a group I belonged to very, very briefly approached the WoD games was also exceptionally boring to me.
> 
> And yet, I don't believe I've ever accused them of not roleplaying ...




Oh I'm not accusing anyone of any such thing.  People can roleplay in any game.  I could boot up a game of minesweeper and become Captain Mino, the sweepingest Mineclearer.  That's not the point.  The point is this:

Is roleplaying integral to the game?  Y/N

If N, it isn't a roleplaying game.  This applies equally to MMOs and PnPs.

Addendum to Hussar: Didn't see your post.  The DM question is an interesting one, although I think it is possible to have cooperative games with no DM as well.  They run differently, but are still RPGs under the question I've set above as long as the game revolves around the RP element.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

So, would RP servers would qualify as RPG's?


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, would RP servers would qualify as RPG's?




Depends on what type of impact the RP has on the game itself.  If a character's RP can influence the game world in a meaningful way, then sure.  Usually there will have to be some kind of mechanical effect, which would probably require an arbitrator or group thereof being in constant attendance.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Well, thinking about this for a sec.  If, as the example above indicates, doing the RP allows the group to invade a mountain and hold the mountain against all comers for a period of time, would that qualify as rp having an effect on the game world?


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, thinking about this for a sec.  If, as the example above indicates, doing the RP allows the group to invade a mountain and hold the mountain against all comers for a period of time, would that qualify as rp having an effect on the game world?




Under the condition that the roleplaying elements were somehow officially recognized by the game itself, then yes.

See this I said earlier:

"although it is possible in an MMO, through character roleplaying, to assign meaning to holding this castle or that- it always feels inauthentic- like it's something tacked onto the world, and not a part of it."


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

That sort of brings us around full circle though.  The game of D&D doesn't really recognize any role playing.  It's certainly not a requirement to play.  The DM, OTOH, does recognize role playing.  Thus, in order to play an RPG, we need a GM.

But, we already know that's not true.

I'm stuck in a bit of a paradox.  Help me out.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The game of D&D doesn't really recognize any role playing.  It's certainly not a requirement to play.



The entire activity of playing D&D (and all that encompasses, including combat) _is_ role-playing. Role-playing is not equal to play-acting.


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That sort of brings us around full circle though.  The game of D&D doesn't really recognize any role playing.  It's certainly not a requirement to play.  The DM, OTOH, does recognize role playing.  Thus, in order to play an RPG, we need a GM.
> 
> But, we already know that's not true.
> 
> I'm stuck in a bit of a paradox.  Help me out.




A lot of the rules that govern roleplaying in D&D are tacit contracts.  Their content and impact depend on who your gm/group is.  If roleplaying doesn't have an impact in a game of D&D, I'd say that game isn't a role-playing game either.  Same goes for any game.  There are mechanics which directly allow roleplaying to effect outcomes in place as a toolkit.

As for your GM point, I wasn't disagreeing so much as broadening- what I was saying is that it's possible to have a cooperative control system, run by a group.  You do more or less need some type of discerning body to govern the game, though.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The entire activity of playing D&D (and all that encompasses, including combat) _is_ role-playing. Role-playing is not equal to play-acting.




But, that's a pretty vague answer.  I'm roleplaying because I'm playing D&D?  But, I'm not roleplaying if I play Everquest?  Why?



> There are mechanics which directly allow roleplaying to effect outcomes in place as a toolkit.




What role playing mechanics in D&D directly affect outcomes?  I can't think of any actually.  The mechanics usually don't cover role playing IMO.  The game doesn't care if I come up with a fantastic speech or simply roll a Diplomacy check.  The game certainly doesn't reward roleplay.

The DM, certainly does, but, the mechanics by and large don't.


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What role playing mechanics in D&D directly affect outcomes?  I can't think of any actually.  The mechanics usually don't cover role playing IMO.  The game doesn't care if I come up with a fantastic speech or simply roll a Diplomacy check.  The game certainly doesn't reward roleplay.
> 
> The DM, certainly does, but, the mechanics by and large don't.




Bluff is directly dependent on what you say.  The degree of 'believability' is somewhat arbitrary but there are examples as guidelines.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, would RP servers would qualify as RPG's?




I can tell you from personal exerience that at least in WoW...no.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 26, 2007)

Dromdol said:
			
		

> No. I mean, "remember the time we fought tooth and nail to take the castle, despite two allied guilds stabbing us in the back? Or how, after holding it for two months, and repelling multiple attacks, we were sold out by another ally for the price of a lesser castle? How we fought side by side with a rival guild to hold it, fighting against overwhelming odds as they came through the gates. Again. And again. Remember the last desperate struggle in the throne room, where one of our captain's single handedly dropped over a dozen invaders before they finally brought him down? Remember the mad rush to regroup, the desperate stab at regaining our foothold? Remember that? Remember a month later when we rallied enough support to overthrow a different castle from our enemy alliance, but a merc troop grabbed the throne? Not that THEY held it for long, as they were perpetually unable to forge lasting alliances...or how about when we bloodied ourselves tryin to take..."
> 
> I'm not talking about fights with respawning NPCs. I'm talking real players fighting other real players for valuable real estate. Winning, and losing, and forging memories of friendship, and loyalty, and betrayel. People that think MMORPGs are nothing but one more raid on Rags need to broaden their horizons, there are other worlds than these.
> 
> ...




Yet this whole line of discussion was spawned by someone saying WoW and it's 5 million player inflate the number of people who play Role Playing Games. Just because they print the letters RPG on the side of the box doesn't mean jack. And ultimatly WoW boilsd down to killing the same stuff over and over and over for loot. The PvP boils down to taking the same castle/flag over and over and over for honor which ultimatly becomes loot.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> When I think about what I enjoy about human rpgs it's not really the variety of interaction because it's pretty limited.
> 
> GM comes up with mission. We solve mission by overcoming obstacles, dealing with NPCs and defeating monsters. Obstacles are overcome by using magic or making skill checks. With NPCs we talk to them, bribe or threaten. (Over and over, threats and bribes, bribes and threats, a computer could handle it very easily.) With monsters we hide, fight or run. Mostly fight.
> 
> Sure, we have the potential to do something weird, like befriend a monster or burn down the forest. But it seldom if ever happens.





Man, I feel sorry for you, and that isn't sniping.  A rpg can (and, IMHO, should) be so much more than that.  What you describe is one of the main reasons that I espouse sandbox-style play with rpgs.  You can, literally, do what you want to, rather than following someone else's script.

If I were you, I'd consider changing DMs.

If you want to be in games where more variety occurs in your encounters, I'd suggest running the game yourself.  Set up some encounters where hide, fight, or run aren't the only options.  Have monsters that talk to the PCs when they start the normal hide/run/fight routine.  You know:

"Hey!  Sorry now!  I didn't know you could defend yourselves!  It's usually just kobolds going down this corridor!"

As a result of allowing a more varied interaction with monsters, I've had PCs rescue an orc from bugbears....and then _heal the orc in preference to another party member_.  And, BTW, this was in a 3.X version of the _Keep on the Borderlands_ caves, which shows that _if you follow the advice given in the module_, you certainly have a more immersive experience than some might suggest.  This kind of thing can, and does, happen....and in that particular game, all of the players were in High School (my son & friends).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, that's a pretty vague answer.  I'm roleplaying because I'm playing D&D?  But, I'm not roleplaying if I play Everquest?  Why?




I personally think that the guy responsible for the term already answered this question upthread extremely well.

A role-playing game, in order to qualify as a role-playing game, requires that your decisions are responded to by a human being.  A DM...or human being(s) that serve the same function, in some games, even though they are also players...is required so that the environment of the game is responsive to the desires and interests of the player(s).

In D&D, if you want to talk to the stableboy, you can, because the environment is under the control of a human being.  I.e., not only are you the player playing a role, but the DM is playing many roles, including the role of the world itself (weather, environment, etc.).

In Everquest, if you want to talk to the stableboy, you can _if and only if programming has been done beforehand to determine that you can do so_.

Role-playing games react and respond _to you_ in real time, creating an immersive environment (whether or not you take advantage of this quality) in which anything may be attempted, and any new ruling may be devised on an "as needed" basis to move forward the action in the manner chosen by the participants, whereas _you_ react and respond to the computer simulators of role-playing games, within the limitations of interaction designed by the programmer(s).  

Both may be fun, but IMHO, this is a fundamental difference.


RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Role-playing games react and respond _to you_ in real time,




Um, no. D&D with 6 players + DM is far from _real time_


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Um, no. D&D with 6 players + DM is far from _real time_







I don't have any tabletop games with less than six at the moment, and I have no problem with responding.  Of course game time =/= real time in any event.  Six-second rounds take (sometimes much) longer to play out.  Months can go by in a flash.

However, the DM can make a decision here and now based upon your actions.  The DM doesn't have to reprogram and come out with a Beta version six to fourteen months later.

YMMV.  

RC


----------



## Halivar (Jul 26, 2007)

Question: Are MUD's proper RPG's?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I personally think that the guy responsible for the term already answered this question upthread extremely well.
> 
> A role-playing game, in order to qualify as a role-playing game, requires that your decisions are responded to by a human being.  A DM...or human being(s) that serve the same function, in some games, even though they are also players...is required so that the environment of the game is responsive to the desires and interests of the player(s).
> 
> ...




So what about something like NWN?  Where you DO have a live person guiding the game.  

Conversely, what about a bad DM where you are railroaded?  Is a rail roaded game no longer role playing?  Since your choices are limited artificially by someone else, it's pretty close to a CRPG.  

I admit, I want to agree with you, but, I've yet to see a really convincing arguement.  "You must have a live DM to have an RPG" is not terribly compelling IMO.  There are games without GM's that are most certainly RPG's for one.  And there are CRPG's with GM's for another.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As a result of allowing a more varied interaction with monsters, I've had PCs rescue an orc from bugbears....and then _heal the orc in preference to another party member_.



In Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil PC game, it's possible to rescue two orc prisoners from one of the upper levels. Their captors are a human jailer and a bugbear. They can then join the party and potentially receive healing (though I usually just leave em where they are).


----------



## RFisher (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't know, but I tend to think that there was a degree of role-playing in wargames & other games that lacked referees long before D&D came along. Multiplayer computer games definately have the potential for some amount of role-playing.

But, perhaps I misunderstand the term.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Does there have to be a human GM adjudicating every action in order for it to be a rpg and, if so, why?




When I use the term "role-playing game" I am talking about a game that is only limited by the imagination of the participants. It is a game of improvisation & imagination. It is "Let's pretend" with rules or conventions to resolve disagreements between the participants. Typically this is a referee or GM, but there are games I would call RPGs that lack a GM in the conventional sense.

You know, some of the "social" MUDs I used to participate in came pretty close to that. That was maybe something of a middle ground between computers as a medium for RPG play & actual CRPGs.

Indeed, this is one of the areas in which 3e tends to lose my interest: It's attempt to take the DM out of the equation. When played that way, it becomes--to me--a computer game without the benefit of the computer. & yes, I've experienced older editions played that way, & that's even worse as they weren't designed to be played that way at all.

& yeah, I'm limiting "role-playing game" beyond the sum of its parts. There's nothing unusual about that. ("America" is technically a more generic term than "USA", but they are widely used as synonyms. An "airship" could be anything that flies, but it is generally used only for dirigibles. Even "dirigible" itself means only "steerable", with the "balloon" part elided. Like "auto" often means "automobile" although technically it only means "self-".) When I'm worried that my use of it may be ambiguous, I tend to try to qualify it.

Heck, I'm not even sure that RPGs qualify as "games".

Anyway, I think most of us can agree that TRPGs & CRPGs are quite different & that we enjoy them for different reasons.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In some ways, a human GM can make a game a lot more limited.




There is a certain amount of truth to this.

On the other hand, this is the limitation that I _want_ from the game. Being surprised by other people's imagination & working out a shared imagining... That's where the fun is.

The limitations imposed on me by a computer game, however, are more often the kinds of limitations I don't want.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Sure, we have the potential to do something weird, like befriend a monster or burn down the forest. But it seldom if ever happens.




It may seldom happen in your games, but it is quite common in others.

I do run games in which I have nigh nothing prepared. I simply ask, "What do you do?" & we make it up as we go along. But that's a carrying it to an extreme example.

It's being able to negotiate the GMs prepared adventure in ways the GM didn't have to imagine during preparation. I often create obstacles without a way around them. I want to see how the players will surprise me, should they choose to attempt passing it.

Yeah, on rare occasions you find a solution in a computer game that the creators didn't intend, but this is fairly common at my group's table.

& when we play Toon..._nobody_ knows what is going to happen before it happens.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> Question: Are MUD's proper RPG's?





The question isn't, "Are MUDs _proper_ RPGS?" but "Are MUDs RPGs?"

I would say that (overall) they are _simulations_ of RPGs that contain some role-playing elements, but are not themselves RPGs.  

A RPIMUD _might_ be a role-playing game, depending upon how much the environment is monitored (and therefore, how much it can adjust to player input), and how much of the environment is within the control of the players (who could then act in the role of DM to some degree).

If you are playing a game in which you can consistently take actions _that have not been considered by the programmer beforehand_, then I would consider it a role-playing game according to Gary's definition because that implies that there is a human element that is responding to your actions.

I would also agree that, at some point, a computer game might exist that is so complex that there is no way to determine whether or not actions must be predetermined (i.e., the computer might be able to take all human actions, without being different enough to allow the users to tell whether there's a human or a computer at the helm).  Of course, at this point, the computer (or program) would surely be considered to be passing a Turing test during game play, and thus might be considered a sentient (if not a human) element.  I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime, though.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Conversely, what about a bad DM where you are railroaded?  Is a rail roaded game no longer role playing?  Since your choices are limited artificially by someone else, it's pretty close to a CRPG.




I would certainly be willing to say that, if the human element _refuses_ to allow you to make choices, and refuses to respond to the choices that you make, the game _for all intents and purposes_ ceases to have that human element, and thus ceases to be a role-playing game.

Which is probably why such a game is so unfun; it lacks the very quality that brings people to the tabletop in the first place.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil PC game, it's possible to rescue two orc prisoners from one of the upper levels. Their captors are a human jailer and a bugbear. They can then join the party and potentially receive healing (though I usually just leave em where they are).




Please note that you are quoting an example not of why a computer game isn't a role-playing game, but of why a game that follows a hide/run/fight pattern isn't living up to its potential....whether a RPG or not.

In a RPG, the DM doesn't have to know ahead of time that the orcs might become party members.  The DM can react to the way the players shape the game.

In a non-RPG computer game (often with an RPG label on the box!) the player must determine what the programmer has allowed, and it is the programmer (not the player) who largely shapes the game.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 26, 2007)

> A role-playing game, in order to qualify as a role-playing game, requires that your decisions are responded to by a human being. A DM...or human being(s) that serve the same function, in some games, even though they are also players...is required so that the environment of the game is responsive to the desires and interests of the player(s).




That's a pretty odd requirement for an RPG, IMO. I don't see what about an RPG really requires a judge/DM/etc. at all times, though it seems most pen-and-paper tabletop RPG's do require that as a means of expedient judging. 

And it still fits in with WoW, Everquest, and other MMO's, because those games actively change in response to player desires. It's a TEAM of people doing the responding, but it's still people. They nerf druids and they give you quests and they design BBEG's....


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's a pretty odd requirement for an RPG, IMO. I don't see what about an RPG really requires a judge/DM/etc. at all times, though it seems most pen-and-paper tabletop RPG's do require that as a means of expedient judging.
> 
> And it still fits in with WoW, Everquest, and other MMO's, because those games actively change in response to player desires. It's a TEAM of people doing the responding, but it's still people. They nerf druids and they give you quests and they design BBEG's....




Actually thats the problem with games like WoW etc, the world never does really change everything stays the same everytime you log on. You killed everyone in Keep X last night and burned to the ground at 10PM doesnt matter the next day if not the next 15 minutes its all back to the way it was as if you had never been there. Here in lies the biggest problem the world is static it can't change or else only the first people do something in the game would get the chance to experience it. In DnD if I go to castle X and kill everyone in it the guards don't start respawning 10 minutes after I start. If I burn it down it doesn't magically reappear 15 minutes later.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Both may be fun, but IMHO, this is a fundamental difference.




I occasionally play larps, and discuss the theory of the games in other forums.  In Scandanavia, there's a community of folks who use a "two week rule" - any harm or injury to another player that will heal up within two weeks is legal.  And they often claim that all those people who use dice aren't _really_ playing a role-playing game, because the dice prevent the game from reaching true immersion.  They say that, due to the fundamental difference between their tools and rules and everyone else's they are the only ones who play real role playing games.

Alternatively, I have a former colleague, a 55+ year old VP of Engineering in a software company, who had no RPG experience and started playing World of Warcraft to spend time with his son.  It was quite clear that he had created a persona, and made tactical, strategic, and character-build choices based upon the imaginary personality he'd made for his character, rather than pure effectiveness. He could and would tell stories of his deeds without reference to the rules or interface that are not distinguishable from what we see over in the Story Hour forum.

 Role playing games include a hefty artistic element.  They will defy hard classification much like genres of music and literature. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck - it is a duck.  My colleague was playing a role-playing game, and anyone who says otherwise is too hung up on the methodology of the game to see the _results_.  

I think a whole lot of you are confusing "X is a role playing game" with "X is not what I consider a good role playing game".  Others seem to be engaging in willing or unconscious elitism, and I find that highly disappointing in my fellow EN Worlders.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I occasionally play larps, and discuss the theory of the games in other forums.  In Scandanavia, there's a community of folks who use a "two week rule" - any harm or injury to another player that will heal up within two weeks is legal.  And they often claim that all those people who use dice aren't _really_ playing a role-playing game, because the dice prevent the game from reaching true immersion.  They say that, due to the fundamental difference between their tools and rules and everyone else's they are the only ones who play real role playing games.
> 
> Alternatively, I have a former colleague, a 55+ year old VP of Engineering in a software company, who had no RPG experience and started playing World of Warcraft to spend time with his son.  It was quite clear that he had created a persona, and made tactical, strategic, and character-build choices based upon the imaginary personality he'd made for his character, rather than pure effectiveness. He could and would tell stories of his deeds without reference to the rules or interface that are not distinguishable from what we see over in the Story Hour forum.
> 
> ...




I don't agree at all.    

Played a lot of WoW, its not an RPG as far as I can tell.  Same for City of Heroes.  I've seen people roleplay while playing Talisman.  Still doesn't make it an RPG.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's a pretty odd requirement for an RPG, IMO.




Doesn't seem that odd to me considering the number of people I know who've cited it.



> And it still fits in with WoW, Everquest, and other MMO's, because those games actively change in response to player desires. It's a TEAM of people doing the responding, but it's still people. They nerf druids and they give you quests and they design BBEG's....




Right. & you absolutely cannot see the difference he's talking about?



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Others seem to be engaging in willing or unconscious elitism, and I find that highly disappointing in my fellow EN Worlders.




So, you're saying you're better than us because you aren't elitist? (^_^) Or because you are _consciously_ elitist? (^_^)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think a whole lot of you are confusing "X is a role playing game" with "X is not what I consider a good role playing game".  Others seem to be engaging in willing or unconscious elitism, and I find that highly disappointing in my fellow EN Worlders.




With respect, if anyone has the authority to define what the term "role-playing game" means, it would be Gary Gygax, and I believe that his definition is the best one.

Like all words and terms, "RPG" is an evolving term that gains additional definitions over time.  If I could get enough people to use "RPG" to refer to ham sandwiches, then a ham sandwich would be an RPG _under our definition_.

However, when someone says "The number of role-players has declined over time", which is the genesis of this discussion of what the term means in this thread, I would argue strongly that they do not mean the number of people engaging in _different_ activities that _some now define as role-playing_.  They are saying that the number of people who engage in a discrete activity now is smaller than those that participated in that same discrete activity earlier.  

Gary's definition is what that discrete activity is, and therefore is the relevant definition.

Alternatively, we could include everyone eating ham sandwiches in our discussion.  

IMHO.  YMMV.  YDMB.


----------



## Corwin (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> With respect, if anyone has the authority to define what the term "role-playing game" means, it would be Gary Gygax, and I believe that his definition is the best one.



I have a bit of a problem with this line of thinking.

That's like saying Henry Ford is the man to go to for a definitive term for "automobile". Yet I'm sure his definition would include such things as a brief explanation of the internal combustion engine. After all, that how they were made when they were invented.

So by his standards, I guess an electric car would not qualify as an "automobile" then...

Is my analogy making any sense?


----------



## Brazeku (Jul 26, 2007)

Corwin said:
			
		

> I have a bit of a problem with this line of thinking.
> 
> That's like saying Henry Ford is the man to go to for a definitive term for "automobile". Yet I'm sure his definition would include such things as a brief explanation of the internal combustion engine. After all, that how they were made when they were invented.
> 
> ...




You're drawing a parallel on really shaky ground based on an opinion which is only conjecture on your part.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck - it is a duck.



Unless it's a goose.


----------



## Dromdol (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> With respect, if anyone has the authority to define what the term "role-playing game" means, it would be Gary Gygax, and I believe that his definition is the best one.




I accepted Mr. Gygax's definition, and then tried to explain how my experience in MMORPGs actually matches the expectations he believes necessary to put the RP in RPG. Others, including Mr. Gygax, have dismissed my personal experiences as invalid, rather than refuting the points offered. Does an RPG require actors and an audience? Does it require a DM? Does it require "boundless" imaginative possibility? Does it require depth of narrative story? Does any, read ANY, artificial limitation exclude the RP from RPG? 

I've offered my experience in L2 as a example of a MMORPG providing a rich story environment with actors and audiences co-existing. Some have misinterpreted my experience, arguing that "player sensitive emotional investment" somehow limits the value of the game world. While I would question how that matters in a game that is largely imaginative, it falls very short of encompassing reality. L2 allowed the mechanistic capture of castles. When a guild leader "captured" the castle, it remained in possession of that guild for 2 weeks, until the next siege time allowed other guilds the opportunity. During that time, the possessing guild controlled the tax rates and income of the connected city, they could use the castle as a base of operations, they were responsible for upkeep costs, and for stationing NPC "mercenaries" for castle defense. This wasn't hollow "play pretend", but a very real mechanic with complete in-game support. L2 is currently cited as having a 10% market share, equating to some 2 million accounts.

So that is an example of actors and audiences, participating in a rich, dramatic and MEANINGFUL storyline with a real, mechanical impact on the game. While that meets the large part of the definitions others have offered above, they still reject it as a representation of roleplaying. Others have mentioned the use of the DM in NWN, to much the same response.

Do you know what I dislike? I dislike miniatures. Bluntly, I despise minis. Too many groups I've seen use minis to turn a game I love to play into a tactical military simulation. Spaces and hexes, reach and facing, combat movement and approach all begin to take precedence over the roleplaying events. And frankly, it limits my imagination. The DM drops a Bugbear on the table and says, "Imagine it's a mindflayer", I look at the mini and go, "Doesn't look like a mindflayer." I'd be better off with no representation at all. My mind can imagine a mindflayer. I have difficulty morphing the bugbear mini into a mindflayer mini. I'm not even sure why I need to do so. But some people, they LOVE minis. They adore them. They collect them, and play with them, and pet them, and call them George. And, in the end, I have to admit that minis don't *really* change the RP at all. The groups who focus on tactical wargaming would still be doing it without minis, even if that meant using paperclips, or hasty scribbles on a battlemat. Groups that focus on RP as "playing in character, as actor and audience" would continue to do so, resorting to minis only to clarify the physical realities. (I use pennies myself to this effect, so please, no "how do u rulz the movement?" comments).

I play tabletop D&D and WoW with some of the same guys. Our interactions, socially, are the same in both environments. We talk, we banter, we make stupid jokes. I don't understand why in one situation we're "playing right" and in the other we're "playing wrong". Both situations feel oddly similar. Sure, when I'm DMing at the table, my imagination is the limit. But I can't, not for the life of me, emulate the fluid grace of an MMORPGs combat system. A fight which would occupy seconds on the screen might eat up an hour on the table, during which time there was little "RP", and much focus on mechanical ability to defeat the monster in question. Why is the time spent calculating spell distances, AoOs, combat modifcation adjustments, and comparative movement rates, with D20 mechanical resolution "real roleplaying", but the time I spend talking with my friends about the best way to go about solving an ingame puzzle using ingame information on the computer screen "false roleplaying"?

Several people have mentioned the limits of MMOs. Yes, I'll be the first to jump on that bandwagon. They have some severe limits, both of necessity, and of designer vision. For years, I've wanted certain things that I still haven't gotten from them (some of which I darn well are technically possible). They do have limits, but that implies that table RPGs don't, which doesn't mesh with my experience. Just as the Devs vision limits CRPGs, so too does the DMs limit TRPGs. Someone above pointed out that this shared integration was a good thing, but only when applied to TRPGs. I don't see the difference, but then, I'm reminded daily that the people behind the avatars I see in WoW are very real, and I think many people, including some illustrious notables on this thread, have lost sight of that fact, or sadly enough, never understood it at all.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 26, 2007)

Brazeku said:
			
		

> Is roleplaying integral to the game?  Y/N
> 
> If N, it isn't a roleplaying game.  This applies equally to MMOs and PnPs.



Is roleplaying integral to roleplaying games? Doesn't the game first and foremost resolve around the completion of an objective - kill the dragon, rescue the princess, recover the treasure. With roleplaying coming in as limits on what one will do to achieve this objective, for example a paladin won't use torture, an unintelligent character won't use good tactics and so forth. Is the roleplaying integral here, or just a limiting factor on methods?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 26, 2007)

Dork Tower has captured this debate beautifully:

From the pages of Dragon 349


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Dromdol said:
			
		

> I accepted Mr. Gygax's definition, and then tried to explain how my experience in MMORPGs actually matches the expectations he believes necessary to put the RP in RPG. Others, including Mr. Gygax, have dismissed my personal experiences as invalid, rather than refuting the points offered.




May I say that I did not see those responses in the same light as you did?

The way I saw it was that Mr. Gygax said that rpgs require apples, and you demonstrated that your experiences included pears.  The response was, therefore, that while pears may be similar to apples, they are not the same thing.

This is, IMHO, a valid refutation.



> Does an RPG require actors and an audience? Does it require a DM? Does it require "boundless" imaginative possibility? Does it require depth of narrative story? Does any, read ANY, artificial limitation exclude the RP from RPG?




It requires that the direction in which the story can go, and the means by which choices can be resolved, is limited only by the imaginations, desires, and goals of the participants, rather than by what the programmer(s) was able to imagine.

A role-playing game is driven by the choices of the players, which are resolved by the DM (or group of players in some DM-surrogate games), whereas a computer "RPG" is driven by the potential choices programmed into it long before play began.



> Do you know what I dislike? I dislike miniatures. Bluntly, I despise minis. Too many groups I've seen use minis to turn a game I love to play into a tactical military simulation. Spaces and hexes, reach and facing, combat movement and approach all begin to take precedence over the roleplaying events. And frankly, it limits my imagination.




I agree with this quite a bit.  I think that making the game so mini-centric was one of the real drawbacks of 3.5 over 3.0.



> Several people have mentioned the limits of MMOs. Yes, I'll be the first to jump on that bandwagon. They have some severe limits, both of necessity, and of designer vision.




That's the difference, if you accept Gary's definition, right there.  

While the DM might have some limits (and we all do), at least you have the potential to do something about that, even if it means running your own game.  If the DM is as limited as the computer simulator, refusing to allow any leeway off the pre-programmed path, then I'd agree that that DM is not running a role-playing game.  I'd bet Gary would agree, too.


RC


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Jul 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, but, what he said, other than including the words "skill checks" applies equally to all editions.
> 
> IME.  YMMV.



Gee!

Whatever happened to dialog between PCs and monsters?

Does anyone recall my humerous little anecdote, "The Giant's Bag"? No computer-run game short of the Starship _Enterprise's_ holodeck could begin to duplicate that sort of play, and encounters of that sort were common in the play of the Greyhawk Campaign...as they should be in all true RPG campaigns.

No hireling or henchman was a mere puppet doing what the PC demanded. They have minds of their own, talk back, are sometimes rebellious or cowardly or reckless.

This debate is certainly a waste of time and effort, because while it is demonstrable that the computer can not curently provide an RPG, those that wish such games were classed as that form of game will attempt to define the RPG to suiyt their view, thus make the dead electroinic "RPG simulation" game into the living human-managed and all-oarticipant interactive RPG.

So I am out of here  

Cheers,
Gary


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Corwin said:
			
		

> I have a bit of a problem with this line of thinking.
> 
> That's like saying Henry Ford is the man to go to for a definitive term for "automobile". Yet I'm sure his definition would include such things as a brief explanation of the internal combustion engine. After all, that how they were made when they were invented.
> 
> ...





A more apt analogy would be as follows:

Henry Ford creates an automobile.

Bob Bobson creates a three-wheel machine that he calls an automobile, which derives power from the user pedalling.

Henry Ford says it is not an automobile, because it lacks defining characteristics of an automobile, such as automatic power.

Other people side with Bob Bobson and say that, no, Henry Ford doesn't know what he's talking about.

The tricycle is sold as an automobile.


RC


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Is roleplaying integral to roleplaying games? Doesn't the game first and foremost resolve around the completion of an objective - kill the dragon, rescue the princess, recover the treasure. With roleplaying coming in as limits on what one will do to achieve this objective, for example a paladin won't use torture, an unintelligent character won't use good tactics and so forth. Is the roleplaying integral here, or just a limiting factor on methods?



You're using "roleplayng" and "role assumption" and "play acting" as synonyms here. They are not.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You're using "roleplayng" and "role assumption" and "play acting" as synonyms here. They are not.



Yes by 'roleplaying' I mean acting, playing a role. What do you mean by it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 26, 2007)

I'd say CRPGs are RPGs, but they are 2nd rate ones.  Unless you're in a LAN with your buddies, not even the best of them truly capture the experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The tricycle is sold as an automobile.




A bit more on this.

As I said above, many words and terms evolve, and gain additional meanings over time.  Certainly, there is a concerted effort by the designers of certain types of games to market them by using the RPG term as a means of reaching an existing market.

As the term is now used, I would agree that a secondary definition of "role-playing game" may now exist which, in fact, denotes a simulation of the original definition.

What I will not agree to is that the secondary definition is therefore the same thing as the original definition.  Attempts to conflate the two are disingenous, and lead to errors in reasoning, just as attempt to conflate "roleplaying", "role assumption", and "play acting" do.

_Within the context of the statement that roleplaying has declined_, earlier on this thread, the original definition is the only relevant definition.  Attempts to use secondary definitions are spurious at best.

Many words have alternate definitions, some of which are mutually exclusive, and some of which can fall under an overarching meta-defintion.  Surely, both definitions here are "adventure simulation games" as both the automobile and tricycle are "wheeled vehicles".  That doesn't mean that they are the same thing.  

Indeed, thinking that they are the same thing might have something to do with why roleplaying (original meaning) is declining in the first place.  If people imagine that the tabletop game is or should be as limited as the computer simulations thereof, no wonder they don't want to put in the effort.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Gee!
> 
> Whatever happened to dialog between PCs and monsters?




Well, in my experience, most monsters don't really talk back all that much, and those which do - being, generally, slobbery hordes of twisted souls - aren't much interested in what the PCs have to say.

There are, however, certain NPCs with which converse can be productive.  On the CRPG front, as long ago as the Gold Box Series you could speak / interact with wandering bands of humanoids (incl. goblins, hobgoblins, etc.) and bribe them to leave you alone, join you in an upcoming fight, get information from them, etc.



> Does anyone recall my humerous little anecdote, "The Giant's Bag"? No computer-run game short of the Starship _Enterprise's_ holodeck could begin to duplicate that sort of play, and encounters of that sort were common in the play of the Greyhawk Campaign...as they should be in all true RPG campaigns.




I can't say as I've ever read that, no.  But, again (and assuming what happened in the story), I think you are missing one of the major aspects of MMO*RPG*s, and that's that, occasionally, it *is* another player in the guise of the giant.  It *is* a gamemaster sitting on the other side of the screen, talking back and interacting and agreeing to go on his own way for a couple shiney pieces of gold, or join you on your quest, or what-have-you, and this is even more common in smaller-scale MMO*RPG*s like Neverwinter Nights (where the player to DM ratio can be roughly equal to a tabletop game, if you want to run it that way).



> This debate is certainly a waste of time and effort,




I'm sorry you feel that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, in my experience, most monsters don't really talk back all that much, and those which do - being, generally, slobbery hordes of twisted souls - aren't much interested in what the PCs have to say.




That's sort of sad, actually.



> I think you are missing one of the major aspects of MMO*RPG*s, and that's that, occasionally, it *is* another player in the guise of the giant.  It *is* a gamemaster sitting on the other side of the screen, talking back and interacting and agreeing to go on his own way for a couple shiney pieces of gold, or join you on your quest, or what-have-you, and this is even more common in smaller-scale MMO*RPG*s like Neverwinter Nights (where the player to DM ratio can be roughly equal to a tabletop game, if you want to run it that way).




IOW, there are times that the game operates as a role-playing game, and times that it doesn't.  Which makes it a better-than-average RPG simulator, but not an rpg.  However, while you are actually interacting with that DM, _assuming that the program doesn't limit how that DM can react to you_ you would be playing an RPG.  It is that assumption which, I think, is faulty.

BTW, while I am glad that using bold in "MMO*RPG*s" convinces you, I have to admit that it doesn't convince me.  

Of course, if you are using some other definition of "RPG" other than the original definition, such as (say) the definition used by several companies hoping to cash in on RPGs (using the original meaning), then you can say that whatever you like is an RPG.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 26, 2007)

This debate is kind of like saying RAID 0 isn't a RAID. Sure, if you're speaking pedantically, there's no Redundancy, so how could it be a RAID? But, most people will just roll their eyes and go on considering it a type of RAID array. So, someone can go on about how KOTOR, Final Fantasy, and Neverwinter Nights aren't RPGs, but no one is going to stop calling them RPGs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> This debate is kind of like saying RAID 0 isn't a RAID.




No, it's more like saying that a tricycle isn't an automobile, as an automobile was originally defined, regardless of the fact that they share some points of simularity (ex:  vehicle, tires, steering), and regardless of how many people now call it an automobile.

Of course, you agreed with me in one thread, which is over your quota for this year, and if we agreed in another thread before January, I am afraid that the Internet would not only explode, but also implode at the same time!

As I said above, many words and terms evolve, and gain additional meanings over time.  Certainly, there is a concerted effort by the designers of certain types of games to market them by using the RPG term as a means of reaching an existing market.

As the term is now used, I would agree that a secondary definition of "role-playing game" may now exist which, in fact, denotes a simulation of the original definition.

What I will not agree to is that the secondary definition is therefore the same thing as the original definition.  Attempts to conflate the two are disingenous, and lead to errors in reasoning, just as attempt to conflate "roleplaying", "role assumption", and "play acting" do.

_Within the context of the statement that roleplaying has declined_, earlier on this thread, the original definition is the only relevant definition.  Attempts to use secondary definitions are spurious at best.

Many words have alternate definitions, some of which are mutually exclusive, and some of which can fall under an overarching meta-defintion.  Surely, both definitions here are "adventure simulation games" as both the automobile and tricycle are "wheeled vehicles".  That doesn't mean that they are the same thing.  

Indeed, thinking that they are the same thing might have something to do with why roleplaying (original meaning) is declining in the first place.  If people imagine that the tabletop game is or should be as limited as the computer simulations thereof, no wonder they don't want to put in the effort.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, it's more like saying that a tricycle isn't an automobile, as an automobile was originally defined, regardless of the fact that they share some points of simularity (ex:  vehicle, tires, steering), and regardless of how many people now call it an automobile.




By the strictest definition, though, according to original design on the part of what a RAID is, RAID 0 was not included. It was added later as what a RAID did and could be defined as changed over time. Eventually, RAID 0 became a common type of RAID understood by most people who deal with that kind of thing to be a RAID, even though the acronym stands for _Redundant_ Array of Independent Disks. No redundancy exists in RAID 0, yet it is still seen as a RAID.

That's what's happened to the term RPG over the years. Colloquially, no roleplaying is required for a game to be an RPG, or a _Role Playing_ Game (writing it out for emphasis here, I don't doubt everyone knows what it stands for!). If you ask someone what kind of game Final Fantasy is, people will say its a RPG, despite the lack of roleplaying involved in the game.

And, they aren't wrong. Final Fantasy is a line of computer roleplaying games. The term has expanded quite a lot since ye olden days. This is why we now make the distinction into various sub groups. You've got your P&P or Tabletop RPG. You've got your CRPG. You've got your MMORPG. The term has evolved. Heck, _Pokemon_ is an RPG!

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 



> Of course, you agreed with me in one thread, which is over your quota for this year, and if we agreed in another thread before January, I am afraid that the Internet would not only explode, but also implode at the same time!




Just doing my part to try and save the internets!


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 26, 2007)

Haven't read much more than this page of posts so ignore me if I'm just repeating anything.

I wouldn't classify any CRPG I've ever played as a 'roleplaying game' other than to the extent that computer RPG's have created their own genre and continually improve within it. Those that roleplay on WoW RP realms put so much work into breaking the boundaries of the game design that they may as well just play the Warcraft RPG and be done with it.

The defining characteristic of a true roleplaying game is the ability for the 'referee' (DM/Judge/GM/whatever) to improvise. One day a computer will be able to do that at least as well as the best DM's today at which point I think the whole world will suddenly realise exactly what the rest of us have known all along: good roleplaying is pretty much the ultimate gaming experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That's what's happened to the term RPG over the years. Colloquially, no roleplaying is required for a game to be an RPG, or a _Role Playing_ Game (writing it out for emphasis here, I don't doubt everyone knows what it stands for!). If you ask someone what kind of game Final Fantasy is, people will say its a RPG, despite the lack of roleplaying involved in the game.
> 
> And, they aren't wrong.




Perhaps you believe so.  But I certainly do not, nor would I refer to any FF product as an RPG.  If you truly believe that "Colloquially, no roleplaying is required for a game to be an RPG", then I would have to submit that this is such a major change in definition that it is not in any way, shape, or form compatable with the original meaning of the term.

And we know the original meaning of the term, because the gentleman who coined the original meaning of the term told us what it was.

Hence:

As the term is now used, I would agree that a secondary definition of "role-playing game" may now exist which, in fact, denotes a simulation of the original definition.​


> The term has expanded quite a lot since ye olden days.




Henry Ford creates an automobile.

Bob Bobson creates a three-wheel machine that he calls an automobile, which derives power from the user pedalling.

Henry Ford says it is not an automobile, because it lacks defining characteristics of an automobile, such as automatic power.

Other people side with Bob Bobson and say that, no, Henry Ford doesn't know what he's talking about.

The tricycle is sold as an automobile.

The term "automobile" has expanded quite a lot since ye olden days.

(Or, as some might say, using the term that way "expands" it to the point where it becomes meaningless except as a sales tool.)



> Just doing my part to try and save the internets!




As am I.  As am I.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> One day a computer will be able to do that at least as well as the best DM's today at which point I think the whole world will suddenly realise exactly what the rest of us have known all along: good roleplaying is pretty much the ultimate gaming experience.




And the day after there will be threads on messageboards telling us that our claims to have done it that way before the Computer are just rose-colored glasses....


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, someone can go on about how KOTOR, Final Fantasy, and Neverwinter Nights aren't RPGs, but no one is going to stop calling them RPGs.



I don't think anyone is asking for them to be not called "RPGs" (at least I'm not). We all admit there is a genre of video games that has been termed "RPGs." Similarly, there are other genres of video games such as Action, Adventure, Action Adventure, Fighting, Sports, RTS, FPS, TPS, Puzzle, Simulation, and so on. Within the context of video games, calling KOTOR and the rest "RPGs" is accurate (while calling the Legend of Zelda series RPGs, is not, for example).

The analogy is closer to this: the Madden NFL series of video games are called "football games," but no one considers players of those games to be actually playing football. However, within the context of video games, it is accurate to call them "football games."


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> If you ask someone what kind of game Final Fantasy is, people will say its a RPG, despite the lack of roleplaying involved in the game. And, they aren't wrong. Final Fantasy is a line of computer roleplaying games.



You're right: speaking in the context of video games, Final Fantasy is an RPG. However, speaking in the context of the full meaning of the term "role-playing game," it is not.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And the day after there will be threads on messageboards telling us that our claims to have done it that way before the Computer are just rose-colored glasses....




hey as a wargamer... all i can say is roleplaying games of any stripe are for kiddies.

now that's rose colo(u)red for you.

but i like playing kids games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is asking for them to be not called "RPGs" (at least I'm not). We all admit there is a genre of video games that has been termed "RPGs." Similarly, there are other genres of video games such as Action, Adventure, Action Adventure, Fighting, Sports, RTS, FPS, TPS, Puzzle, Simulation, and so on. Within the context of video games, calling KOTOR and the rest "RPGs" is accurate (while calling the Legend of Zelda series RPGs, is not, for example).
> 
> The analogy is closer to this: the Madden NFL series of video games are called "football games," but no one considers players of those games to be actually playing football. However, within the context of video games, it is accurate to call them "football games."




That's a much better answer than mine.

Within the realm of computer games, a "football game" simulates football, whereas a "role-playing game" simulates RPGs.

Well put, Sir.


----------



## Dromdol (Jul 26, 2007)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> Does anyone recall my humerous little anecdote, "The Giant's Bag"?




No, but recursive self-congratulations are always beneficial in actual arguments. Please enlighten us.



> No computer-run game short of the Starship _Enterprise's_ holodeck could begin to duplicate that sort of play,




Oh, I doubt the holodeck would suffice. The computer still wouldn't be a DM, would it? I mean, you play your little semantic games and trash anything you can't wrap your head around, why is that any different, 3D graphics? The chance to be stuck with Data in his Sherlock Holmes hat? It's elementary my dear Gary, ye are livin' in the past.



> and encounters of that sort were common in the play of the Greyhawk Campaign...as they should be in all true RPG campaigns.




Personally, I think any roleplaying (or is that role-assumption?) that doesn't dig in and leave some psychic scars must be for chumps. Now, contary to what some ego-feeders have said in the posts above, you didn't invent "roleplaying".  I trust you haven't blinded yourself enough to forget that "roleplaying" grew from a Freudian conception of ego-projection, and the term has been around for several decades longer than a game. So maybe step down from the pedastel before dictating what a "true" anything is.



> This debate is certainly a waste of time and effort,




Any argument in which one party remains in willful, blissful, self-imposed ignorance is a waste of time.



> because while it is demonstrable that the computer can not curently provide an RPG, those that wish such games were classed as that form of game will attempt to define the RPG to suiyt their view,




And those without a clue will continue to do the opposite. I have demonstrated how your "apples" were the same as my "apples". But now you're quibbling that Granny Smith's aren't, because only Red Delicious is "real" apples. 



> thus make the dead electroinic "RPG simulation" game into the living human-managed and all-oarticipant interactive RPG.




This is what truly and fully offends me. I know and have met people I met in that "dead electronic" RPG simulation. I have friends I've only seen in the gameworld. They are just as real as anyone I've met in person, and my friendship is as real. Emotional attachments and relationships, stories and memories, aren't real because of the medium, but because of the people. If you play an MMORPG and never develop a relationship, a friendship, a camraderie with those around you, well, that's your loss. Don't project that inability to connect to everyone else.



> So I am out of here.




But of course you are. You never had anything of substance to add to the debate in the first place, as you wallow in your self-imposed ignorance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 26, 2007)

Dromdol said:
			
		

> Any argument in which one party remains in willful, blissful, self-imposed ignorance is a waste of time.




Ad hominem attacks?

Or a suggestion that those of us who differentiate between RPGs and computer simulations thereof are wasting their time because you aren't interested in actually refuting the positions we hold?



RC


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Dromdol said:
			
		

> Now, contary to what some ego-feeders have said in the posts above, you didn't invent "roleplaying".  I trust you haven't blinded yourself enough to forget that "roleplaying" grew from a Freudian conception of ego-projection, and the term has been around for several decades longer than a game.



Gary Gygax has never claimed to invent the term "role-playing." He invented "role-playing _games_" as a type of _game_. In the type of Freudian exercise you reference, "role-playing" probably _is_ synonymous with "role assumption." But that is not the context in which we are discussing the meaning of the term "role-playing."


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 26, 2007)

I guess the two big questions are:1) If one is playing a roleplaying game, but isn't roleplaying, is said person playing a roleplaying game? and 2) If one plays a roleplaying game in the same way one would play an MMORPG, is said person playing a roleplaying game?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 1) If one is playing a roleplaying game, but isn't roleplaying, is said person playing a roleplaying game?



You're continuing to use "roleplaying" and "play-acting" or "role assumption" as synonyms. That is not what "roleplaying" means in this context. Without giving a huge thesis, the entire activity of playing D&D (or GURPS, White Wolf, etc.) is role-playing. Role assumption and play-acting are just two aspects, out of many, of the game-play activities that constitutes role-playing.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> With respect, if anyone has the authority to define what the term "role-playing game" means, it would be Gary Gygax, and I believe that his definition is the best one.




With respect - you included the "if", and I plan to use it. I don't think anyone has that authority.  Again, like defining a fictional genre, it is best defined by consensus of the community that like it, rather than by a singular authority.  To say Gary should be the one to define the term "RPG" is rather like saying William Gibson is the only one who can define the term "cyberpunk".  

With all due respect, the man no longer represents enough of the design experience out there to be called a strong enough authority to define it alone.  Gary and his compartriots defined where RPGs started, sure.  And he deserves a boatload of kudos for that vision.  But to be honest, he's not been at the forefront of design for quite a while, now.  To stick to his definition would be to deny that growth can occur, that a thing can evolve, and even improve, with time.

Overall, we should respectfully accept the fact that the creation has grown beyond the vision of the original creator.  The can of worms has been opened, and they won't fit back in that first can anymore.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You're continuing to use "roleplaying" and "play-acting" or "role assumption" as synonyms. That is not what "roleplaying" means in this context. Without giving a huge thesis, the entire activity of playing D&D (or GURPS, White Wolf, etc.) is role-playing. Role assumption and play-acting are just two aspects, out of many, of the game-play activities that constitutes role-playing.



Down my way, roleplaying means acting, so we can for example play rpgs without necessarily doing much roleplaying. I'm pretty sure that's what Brazeku meant by the term too, otherwise his point would just have been a tautology.

He'd have been saying something like "a roleplaying game is any game in which playing a roleplaying game plays an integral part".


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's sort of sad, actually.




Why?  What sort of meaningful conversation are you going to have with a black pudding, or a chimaera, or a gibbering mouther?  When the fanatical lizardmen followers of Set charge the swampside settlement, willingly ebmracing death so long as they spill human blood, are they going to have any particular bits of wisdom to impart?

When the Hidden High Priests of the Dark God are in the final stages of their final ritual to summon the End-of-All, do you really think you're going to convert any of them by pointing out the danger in what they're doing?

There are times, and depending on your campaign style potentially a lot of them, when there's just no good reason to chat with your foes.

And if I'm having fun, and my players are having fun, who the hell are you to sit in judgement of me and mine?



> IOW, there are times that the game operates as a role-playing game




So, now, there's a distinction between "operating as a role-playing game" and actually being a role-playing game?

That's an interesting distinction to draw, given your particular point of view:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Doesn't that just say that, really, D&D is a "better-than-average RPG simulator" and not an actual role-playing game?  After all, sometimes D&D lacks the "human element" required of RPGs - and sometimes MMO*RPG*s include the "human element" required of RPGs.

Or is it a matter of degree?  If my NWN server is 100% DM-and-party, is it a roleplaying game?  What if it's 95%?  What if that 5% is "back in town down-time," which would be handwaved in a "real" RPG anyway?

Is that a meaningful difference?



> BTW, while I am glad that using bold in "MMO*RPG*s" convinces you, I have to admit that it doesn't convince me.




It's not to convince you - just more to keep in plain view.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Without giving a huge thesis, the entire activity of playing D&D (or GURPS, White Wolf, etc.) is role-playing.




... So, playing a role-playing game is role-playing?

That's a *tremendously* useful definition. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ad hominem attacks?






Yes.  Dromdol will not be rejoining this conversation.

Anyone else choosing to be uncivil shall also be given an involuntary vacation from EN World


----------



## Numion (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't think it's important to define RPGs what's behind the screen (DMs or computers) or degrees of limitedness.

I mean, I've played probably played with more limited human DMs than some computer RPGs are nowadays. A chance to converse with monsters in a PnP RPG is pretty moot if the DM doesn't have them respond. It's the same thing as speaking to your computer screen  

I do realize that the unlimited nature of D&D is it's greatest strength. It's unfortunate that the game relies so much on miniatures now, because that's making it more granular (people standing in squares) and more limited.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... So, playing a role-playing game is role-playing?




The numerous activities involved in playing D&D are each aspects role-playing and taken together, _is_ role-playing (in this context). There is an overarching manner and extent that the participants are interacting with each other that creates an umbrella under which all of their activities in the game is role-playing. 

Play-acting, role assumption, role immersion, are each aspects of this role-playing activity (but not the whole of it or synonyms for it).

Exploration of imagined environments overseen by a game master that can respond to extemporaneous actions by participants is an other aspect of this role-playing activity. 

Socially interacting with non-player sentient beings being controlled by a game master that can act and react in non-scripted ways, in either first or third person narrative manner, is an aspect of the role-playing activity.

This is not exhaustive of the aspects that make up role-playing activity but I think you can see what is meant.

I think perhaps the best way to conceptualize this is to consider what Gary has said on several occasions (paraphrase): "the secret of role-playing games is that rules are not necessary." 

As long as there is a game master present that can arbitrate actions impartially and interact with the players in extemporaneous, non-scripted ways, that is a role-playing game (this ranges from "play acting" the NPCs, to altering the imagined physical environment of the game world in response to player action). The rules of role-playing games are merely guidelines and tools to assist in arbitrating this game, but is not the game itself.

In my opinion, that is why many believe that a role-playing game is played best "when the rules fade into the background." They are experiencing and expressing the basic minimalism that is sufficient for a role-playing game to take place.


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 26, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Actually, I've seen just that happen.  And the player get away with it.    (No, it wasn't me.)




Well, back when i ran the original ToEE when I killed something like 20 + PCs... one my players wanted to reroll and I did not allow him. So he made such a fool of himself, that he managed to get killed by the ranger henchman of the party.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

The problem with this definition, GG, ...



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Play-acting, role assumption, role immersion, are each aspects of this role-playing activity (but not the whole of it or synonyms for it).
> 
> Exploration of imagined environments overseen by a game master that can respond to extemporaneous actions by participants is an other aspect of this role-playing activity.
> 
> Socially interacting with non-player sentient beings being controlled by a game master that can act and react in non-scripted ways, in either first or third person narrative manner, is an aspect of the role-playing activity.




... is that I can do all of this, quite handily, in NWN right now.

NWN's greatest weakness is that it's hard to change the map mid-flight (as in, it's hard to remove a building, or add a new one; newer GM / scripting tools make this easier).

However, I don't see this as particularly different from a tabletop game in which I've only got a single building which doesn't have a "destroyed form," and we all choose to remember that it's currently burning to the ground.

Note that the original goal of NWN was exactly to facilitate the DM-and-party structure (there's a reason an NWN level is called a module!), and that NWN-based MMO*RPG*s are a side-effect.

So why isn't NWN an RPG?  What's missing?


----------



## Morden78 (Jul 26, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes.  Dromdol will not be rejoining this conversation.
> 
> Anyone else choosing to be uncivil shall also be given an involuntary vacation from EN World



Getting banned for making a factual observation... What will they think of next?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Morden78 said:
			
		

> Getting banned for making a factual observation... What will they think of next?



How about getting banned for creating duplicate accounts?


----------



## Morden78 (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> How about getting banned for creating duplicate accounts?



 Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm just a longtime lurker. No dupes here.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> However, I don't see this as particularly different from a tabletop game in which I've only got a single building which doesn't have a "destroyed form," and we all choose to remember that it's currently burning to the ground.




If the building you are refering to is a miniature of some kind, that is not the building itself, it is a visual aide. The building itself exists in the participants' imaginations and is completely mutable and changeable in response to player action and game master arbitration, including actions not anticpated by the game master or even the RAW.



> So why isn't NWN an RPG?  What's missing?



Total game master control over the environment and the beings in it to react in-game in non-scripted ways to extemporaneous, unanticipated actions. The scope of activity in the game must only be limited by the imagination of the participants.

The game engine of the video game necessarily limits the scope of action that the game master and players can have. Now, if somehow, the game engine becomes sufficiently advanced that the game master (which is a human) has complete spontaneous, in-game control, and the players have complete extemporaneous imaginative freedom for their characters to perform actions, then using the NWN would seem to be a form of communication by which participants can play a role-playing game, similar to a more graphically intensive WebRPG.*

*HOWEVER, I am not greatly familiar with NWN, and if it contains what are called "action elements" (as the term is used in the video game industry) it would not quite be an actual role-playing game. What I mean by this is if there is a significant element where participants' manual dexterity at manupulating the keyboard and mouse (or controller, or whatever physical input devise is in use) is crucial to succeeding at in-game tasks (such as combat), then it isn't a role-playing game.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Morden78 said:
			
		

> Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm just a longtime lurker. No dupes here.



A long time lurker who suddenly felt urge to register and post for the first time in response to the banning of another member who had recently registered?

Why did I ever doubt you?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> If the building you are refering to is a miniature of some kind, that is not the building itself, it is a visual aide.




Right, as is the 3d model in the NWN engine.

I assume you're okay with a whole building in miniature form representing a burned-out husk (and that this would not invalidate the tabletop experience as roleplaying).  Are you okay with a whole building in computer form representing a burned-out husk?

If not, why not?



> Total game master control over the environment and the beings in it to react in-game in non-scripted ways to extemporaneous, unanticipated actions. The scope of activity in the game must only be limited by the imagination of the participants.
> 
> The game engine of the video game necessarily limits the scope of action that the game master and players can have.




Could you explain what that means, and how it is prevented in NWN?

Could you give a couple specific examples of things you'd like to do, but you believe cannot be done in NWN (I'll keep in mind your relative unfamiliarity)?



> What I mean by this is if there is a significant element where participants' manual dexterity at manupulating the keyboard and mouse (or controller, or whatever physical input devise is in use) is crucial to succeeding at in-game tasks (such as combat), then it isn't a role-playing game.




Ah, no, it doesn't.  (Or, rather, I guess you could argue that it does, in that it's possible to run things real-time and so if you're slow finding the spell you'd like to cast it's like you're unintentionally delaying* ...)

However, the DM (and any players he allows) can pause the game at any time and wait for people to select actions, describe what they are doing, yell appropriate battle cries, etc.

In fact, there is at least one group of people who have posted pictures showing how they use the NWN engine and a projector to handle the game map when they are playing normal D&D.

* - Note that I have, as a DM, done the same thing when my players cannot decide what they are going to do in a reasonable amount of time: "Okay, you're delaying, we'll come back to you when you're ready."


----------



## Numion (Jul 26, 2007)

Morden78 said:
			
		

> Getting banned for making a factual observation... What will they think of next?




C'mon, he sonned Gary Gygax, creator of D&D. Even on the internet some things are sacred!   :\   

I can understand the mods response; while we're all equal, some should be more equal so that EN World will be visited by RPG celebs also in the future. These are small circles in the end, so no point in letting someone piss in everyones cereals.


----------



## Thaniel (Jul 26, 2007)

In a similar vein, a video game that was from the first person POV that was all melee combat would still be termed a FPS (First Person Shooter) even though there is no shooting involved.


----------



## Morden78 (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> A long time lurker who suddenly felt urge to register and post for the first time in response to the banning of another member who had recently registered?
> 
> Why did I ever doubt you?



 Yep, because it was the first time I saw something stupid enough to warrant the effort it took to register. Not that there hadn't been enough stupid in this thread already, of both the mouth-to-ass variety and the head-up-ass kind.


----------



## Morden78 (Jul 26, 2007)

Deleted, because it was uncalled for.


----------



## Numion (Jul 26, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> What I mean by this is if there is a significant element where participants' manual dexterity at manupulating the keyboard and mouse (or controller, or whatever physical input devise is in use) is crucial to succeeding at in-game tasks (such as combat), then it isn't a role-playing game.




Sure you want to open that can of worms? Success in tasks in PnP D&D is to a high degree influenced and determined by your _meta_-game skills, not your ability to immerse in a role or roleplay (I'm confused by the definitions at this point..). Importance of meta-game aspects is not a good divider to non-RPGs and true RPGs, since meta-game is outside the roleplaying aspects of the game.

Players meta-game skills (for ex the ability to position miniatures in PnP D&D or the ability to punch mouse in CRPGs) is separate from the games inner reality, which is the more important divider to true RPGs and what some would call RPG simulators.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 26, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Sure you want to open that can of worms? Success in tasks in PnP D&D is to a high degree influenced and determined by your _meta_-game skills, not your ability to immerse in a role or roleplay (I'm confused by the definitions at this point..). Importance of meta-game aspects is not a good divider to non-RPGs and true RPGs, since meta-game is outside the roleplaying aspects of the game.



The short answer is that mental and social faculties are part and parcel of role-playing, so what is commonly called "metagaming"* in the context of role-playing games, is often simply "gaming." 

Being aware of the game as game, and applying player experience (rather than attempting to limit to "only what the character knows") is safely within the umbrella of activities that constitute role-playing. Again, it is important to remember that "role assumption" and "role immersion" are not the whole of or synonyms for "role-playing" (in this context). 

Physical faculties are not part and parcel of role-playing, so if they have significant importance to how your character's actions are performed, the video game falls into the "action" category.



> Players meta-game skills (for ex the ability to position miniatures in PnP D&D or the ability to punch mouse in CRPGs) is separate from the games inner reality, which is the more important divider to true RPGs and what some would call RPG simulators.




If right clicking the mouse button is used to initiate an attack (possibly choosing from hot-keyed commands for different attacks or a drop-down menu), that's no different than a player sitting at a table telling the DM "I attack [by such-and-such attack form]" This doesn't fall under the "action" category, and would be fine as an example of computer interface used to play an "actual" role-playing game combat.

If, however, you must perform some kind of physical flourish with the mouse (or joystick, etc.) to get a certain attack to function (think special moves in video games like Street Fighter II), and/or must aim your attack accurately using the physical input and GUI in order to target the opponent and certain body parts, you are playing an action game, not a role-playing game.**






*We should be careful if we are going to introduce "metagaming" as a term in this discussion, because it is often thought of as a synonym for cheating in a role-playing game (because role-playing is being used as a synonym for role assumption or role immersion). In my opinion, the only "metagaming" that is cheating in a role-playing game is when the players peek at the DM's map, notes, etc. and use that knowledge to their advantage.

**Yes, this may very well call into question to what extent LARPs are actually role-playing games. I suggest we leave that can of worms alone and stay focused on video games.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 27, 2007)

Morden78 said:
			
		

> Deleted, because it was uncalled for.



You're not done yet.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 27, 2007)

Morden78 said:
			
		

> Getting banned for making a factual observation... What will they think of next?



Spewing insults isn't "a factual observation." Even if it were, Morden, if you want to discuss moderation please email the moderator in question (or any moderator, or report the post.) As per our rules, don't discuss it in the thread.

Email me with any questions.

In the mean time, folks, don't pick a fight. If you have a problem with a post, report it. Our tolerance for rudeness, crudity and snarkiness in this thread has just about bottomed out.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jul 27, 2007)

I disagree with ENWorld's popular defintion of Role playing, but that is because in the context of word is defined by a dictionary, presuming it is the same context. 

Role playing would be defined as being a role. Actors play a role, as do D&Ders, as do Crpg, they are playing a role even if it has little effect on how the stories they have. (Actors and Crpgers both have little choice over role they play on the story)

You can disagree respectively with my opinion but I am sure actors would disagree with you and ect, ect. The problem is that it is arbitrary, with semantics as the main argument.

---Rusty


----------



## Numion (Jul 27, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> *We should be careful if we are going to introduce "metagaming" as a term in this discussion, because it is often thought of as a synonym for cheating in a role-playing game (because role-playing is being used as a synonym for role assumption or role immersion). In my opinion, the only "metagaming" that is cheating in a role-playing game is when the players peek at the DM's map, notes, etc. and use that knowledge to their advantage.




Metagaming is using knowledge the character wouldn't have. It includes, but is not limited, cheating by having adventure specific information beforehand. Other examples are adjusting the characters actions by acknowledging it's just a character in a game, which of course a character inside the gameworld wouldn't know. 

It's not all bad; for example all groups will use metagame information when the characters are looking for a new comrade to join them after a PC has died; they don't 'accidentally' choose an NPC to join in and take the original PCs spot, even though a cleric was needed but one player decided to try a barbarian instead. In a way, PCs recognize other PCs, and will usually quickly trust new PCs while they wouldn't trust NPCs. It's just a way to make the game run smoothly, and is by no means cheating, of course.

But in short, it ties quite directly to role immersion / role playing / whatever it's now called, because you can't metagame without breaking your immersion a little bit.

Anyways, all the definitions here are making my head hurt


----------



## Slife (Jul 27, 2007)

Yes, they are.

F'r example, nethack.

The Dev Team Thought of Everything


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jul 27, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I disagree with ENWorld's popular defintion of Role playing, but that is because in the context of word is defined by a dictionary, presuming it is the same context.
> 
> Role playing would be defined as being a role. Actors play a role, as do D&Ders, as do Crpg, they are playing a role even if it has little effect on how the stories they have. (Actors and Crpgers both have little choice over role they play on the story)
> 
> ...








Role Playing

Yeah.

---Rusty


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> With respect - you included the "if", and I plan to use it. I don't think anyone has that authority.





Fair enough.  That If/Then statement was included for a reason.  However, if you argue that no one has the authority to definitively define the term, you must also accept that one cannot definitively define what the term includes or does not include.

Thus, should I declare that eating ham sandwiches is role-playing, there is no definitive way to contradict me.  

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Why?  What sort of meaningful conversation are you going to have with a black pudding, or a chimaera, or a gibbering mouther?




It's sad because your original statement cut out a whole lot of potential for games.  If you're having fun, and your players are having fun, that's great.  However, artificially limiting yourself perforce limits the potential of your game.

There's a great deal of difference between saying 

There are times, and depending on your campaign style potentially a lot of them, when there's just no good reason to chat with your foes.​
and saying 

Well, in my experience, most monsters don't really talk back all that much, and those which do - being, generally, slobbery hordes of twisted souls - aren't much interested in what the PCs have to say.[/quote]

which I understood to mean that you cannot have the possibility of talking to the vast majority of the creatures you meet.



> So, now, there's a distinction between "operating as a role-playing game" and actually being a role-playing game?




A computer football game uses the rules of football, and in that sense operates as football, but nonetheless is not actually football.



> Doesn't that just say that, really, D&D is a "better-than-average RPG simulator" and not an actual role-playing game?




No, it says that if you have all of the trappings of football, you can still do something that isn't football.



> If my NWN server is 100% DM-and-party, is it a roleplaying game?  What if it's 95%?  What if that 5% is "back in town down-time," which would be handwaved in a "real" RPG anyway?
> 
> Is that a meaningful difference?




If the DM is not limited in potential by the programming, then I would agree that it is a role-playing game, so long as the DM is involved in all interactions.  If the program limits the judgment calls that the DM can make, then I would not agree that it is a role-playing game.

RC​


----------



## Treebore (Jul 27, 2007)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Amen, brother! I want to take both sides of the 'roleplay vs rollplay' debate and smash their heads together. I'm in it for the fun. If the game is fun, great...be that will in-character banter or hack-n-slashing your way through a dungeon. It's all the same.
> 
> The only way the game was 'meant' to be play was to be fun.





Yes, my sentiments as well.


----------



## Slife (Jul 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the DM is not limited in potential by the programming, then I would agree that it is a role-playing game, so long as the DM is involved in all interactions.  If the program limits the judgment calls that the DM can make, then I would not agree that it is a role-playing game.
> 
> RC



So, let's say we've got a party playing ODnD with a DM who is a bilingual.  He is a native English speaker, but is not entirely fluent in, say, Russian.

He wants to make a judgment call to a Russian player, but has momentarily forgotten the Russian word for pirate, so he can't.

By your definition, he is not playing a role playing game.


----------



## Galieo (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm almost afraid to dip my toe into the water lest it get bitten off by the circling sharks.    

However, I have been thinking about this poser and two thoughts occur to me:

1.  Visual representation--the computer game is the complete definition of the setting, actors, etc.; while the tabletop game does not provide such a defined experience.  This may explain some posters discomfort with miniatures and the like, in the sense that the visual aids "limit" their imagination.

No matter how descriptive the tabletop DM is, there will always be a gap between the verbal description and the mental image that player has.  Such a gap, and the opportunity  to fill it, does not occur in a computer game.

2.  Justice Stewart's Casablanca Test--"I know it when I see it."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I've played probably played with more limited human DMs than some computer RPGs are nowadays. A chance to converse with monsters in a PnP RPG is pretty moot if the DM doesn't have them respond. It's the same thing as speaking to your computer screen




Agreed.  Well, not so much IME, but certainly in principle.  But, OTOH, isn't it possible that the advancement of CRPGs as being the same as RPGs makes people believe that the two should play the same?



> I do realize that the unlimited nature of D&D is it's greatest strength. It's unfortunate that the game relies so much on miniatures now, because that's making it more granular (people standing in squares) and more limited.




Agree completely.  See above comment.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> So, let's say we've got a party playing ODnD with a DM who is a bilingual.  He is a native English speaker, but is not entirely fluent in, say, Russian.
> 
> He wants to make a judgment call to a Russian player, but has momentarily forgotten the Russian word for pirate, so he can't.
> 
> By your definition, he is not playing a role playing game.





Strawman.

The DM is not simply a processor, regardless of what some would have us believe, but is one of the players of the game.

A roleplaying game is limited only by the players of the game, and responds to their desires, actions, intentions, and imaginations.  The game itself doesn't actually exist independent of these elements; the books are tools to express these elements.  RPGs are open-ended, moving from players to results.

A program is limited by the expectations of the programmer prior to the start of the game.  The game moves, in effect, from the programmer to the players, and the players are limited by the imagination of the programmer.

If you cracked open the RAW of any edition, and only allowed actions to be resolved by the RAW, and only allowed actions that were specifically contained in the RAW, you would have a good simulation of a computer game.  You could, for example, craft any item with a gp value, but could not craft any item not on the preexisting equipment list.  You could use any piece of equipment as described, but could not do anything different with it.  Etc., etc.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

I'll admit that I'm not overly familiar with NWN either, and I have to go with what I understand to be the limitations of computer technology, both on a practical and on a theoretical level.

So, tell me, can you do all or any of the following in NWN:

Destroy a castle in such a way that it remains destroyed forever, and can have no future effect on the game?  I.e., if the players in one Guild all agree to pretend it is destroyed, but it continues to influence the game because it exists, it is not destroyed.

Take an action that was unforseen by the programmers?  For example, in D&D there are only so many uses for equipment listed, but I am able to invent new uses for equipment, limited only to my imagination and the nature of the equipment itself.  The rules approximate a jug, for example, but do not define it, so that the DM can allow me to break the jug to use a shard to cut the ropes that bind me.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but I admit that I am somewhat ignorant of exactly how far the computer simulation engines have progressed, and am open to being convinced if there is a real argument to be made.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 27, 2007)

Galieo said:
			
		

> No matter how descriptive the tabletop DM is, there will always be a gap between the verbal description and the mental image that player has.  Such a gap, and the opportunity  to fill it, does not occur in a computer game.



So do you think those images on a screen provide a more vivid depiction of an imaginary world?

I always think of my settings as made of out of words/text (seeing as they are). Therefore words are the ideal tools to bring them to life.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 27, 2007)

> Right. & you absolutely cannot see the difference he's talking about?




I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't understand why the difference MATTERS, aside from pedantry, semantic debate, and a smug sense of superiority calling electronic games "not true RPG's."

Of course D&D is different than Final Fantasy. Both are called RPG's, like it or not, and both are understood to be _role playing games_. This thread wont' change that fact.

There's a difference, absolutely. The person doing the adjudicating in D&D is a guy at the table while you play. The person doing the adjudicating in Final Fantasy is a team of programmers in Japan, years before. 

That difference doesn't really matter to anyone. They're both RPG's. They have been known as such for almost equally as long (Final Fantasy just a few years later, or Dragon Warrior even before that). 

Why would you bother to try and clarify that which is not really confused?

It's like saying graphic novels aren't really comic books, or that anime isn't really cartoons.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 27, 2007)

RE: Final Fantasy (as an aside)

There are serious arguments (in video game circles discussing "game theory" as it relates to that medium) that Final Fantasy isn't even really a _game_.

I don't posit this as any kind of point in this discussion. It's just that as a gamer, I am fascinated by "intellectual" investigations into such things.

Carry on.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't understand why the difference MATTERS, aside from pedantry, semantic debate, and a smug sense of superiority ...




Isn't that what the internet is for?


----------



## Numion (Jul 27, 2007)

Galieo said:
			
		

> 1.  Visual representation--the computer game is the complete definition of the setting, actors, etc.; while the tabletop game does not provide such a defined experience.  This may explain some posters discomfort with miniatures and the like, in the sense that the visual aids "limit" their imagination.
> 
> No matter how descriptive the tabletop DM is, there will always be a gap between the verbal description and the mental image that player has.  Such a gap, and the opportunity  to fill it, does not occur in a computer game.




Yes it does, for example in NetHack. When I played the game, it didn't feel like I was controlling the role of an 'at' sign (@), even that's what they use to mark the player character. You actually have to use imagination in that game   



> 2.  Justice Stewart's Casablanca Test--"I know it when I see it."




What makes Justice Stewart an expert on roleplaying games? How does he regocnize true RPGs?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The analogy is closer to this: the Madden NFL series of video games are called "football games," but no one considers players of those games to be actually playing football. However, within the context of video games, it is accurate to call them "football games."




But an RPG itself is just a simulation, so its different. Unless you think people playing Final Fantasy are playing a simulation of a simulation! But, no, a simulation of D&D would be playing a game where you control a _player_ who then controls a _PC_. That would be a simulation of D&D. What's going on is not pretending to be pretending. In SWSE I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In KOTOR I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In neither case am I pretending to be playing a game in which I'm pretending to be Roland the Jedi.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> But an RPG itself is just a simulation, so its different. Unless you think people playing Final Fantasy are playing a simulation of a simulation! But, no, a simulation of D&D would be playing a game where you control a _player_ who then controls a _PC_. That would be a simulation of D&D. What's going on is not pretending to be pretending. In SWSE I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In KOTOR I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In neither case am I pretending to be playing a game in which I'm pretending to be Roland the Jedi.




Ok so lets call John Madden Football an RPG too right after all Im pretending to be Tom Brady and company right? Even better next time I'm out of town on business and call the wife for some adult converstion there can and usually is role playing going on so lets call the telephone an RPG too. Sorry there are limits. I have played WoW extensivly 100+ hours since its release and it really isn't an RPG nor have I seen a convincing argument presented to the contrary. You cannot meaningfully affect the game world in WoW nothing you break, burn, slay, etc. stays that way it all respawns and resets sometimes in mere minutes. When is the time this happened to you while playing DnD or Vampire?


----------



## Galieo (Jul 27, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> So do you think those images on a screen provide a more vivid depiction of an imaginary world?
> 
> I always think of my settings as made of out of words/text (seeing as they are). Therefore words are the ideal tools to bring them to life.




Nope, I think the exact opposite.  The gap between the verbal description of the tabletop DM and the player is filled by the player's imagination; whereas, no such gap* exists in the computer game and therefore the player's imagination is not employed in that fashion.

I am not saying imagination is not or cannot be employed in a computer game, just that a key opportunity (i.e., envisioning the scene) is not in play.

* Edit:  Nethack provides an interesting, potential exception; I am speaking about games that visually are intended to define the situation (e.g., NWN, NWN2, etc.).


----------



## Galieo (Jul 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> What makes Justice Stewart an expert on roleplaying games? How does he regocnize true RPGs?




LOL, I think we need a "Speak with Dead" spell to find out, as he is somewhat . . . er . . . stiff at the moment.  Ouch, that even hurt me.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> You cannot meaningfully affect the game world in WoW nothing you break, burn, slay, etc. stays that way it all respawns and resets sometimes in mere minutes. When is the time this happened to you while playing DnD or Vampire?




I reject the noting that you need these things to have an RPG and I don't see how they are intrinsically tied to the definition of a roleplaying game. I haven't noticed one compelling argument why they are needed for an RPG. It's a circular definition.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I reject the noting that you need these things to have an RPG and I don't see how they are intrinsically tied to the definition of a roleplaying game. I haven't noticed one compelling argument why they are needed for an RPG. It's a circular definition.



Ok so if your ready call my cell phone and John Madden Football an RPG then I am willing to buy the notion that WoW is one as well they all bring about as much to the discussion.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 27, 2007)

While I have never played NWN, from what I know of it, I think it's a bit different. I see something of a continuum.


Playing a TRPG in person
Playing a TRPG via WebRPG (or otherwise using the computer as little more than a communication channel for playing essentially the same game you would if you were around a table together)
NWN with a DM (I might also place some of the MUSHes & MOOs I've participated in about here)
MMORPGs
More traditional CRPGs & IF

I'm not going to say that any of them are in any way superior to others. Except maybe to say that _I_ prefer the ends more than the middle. (Although I also really enjoyed the MUSHes & MOOs.)



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Players meta-game skills (for ex the ability to position miniatures in PnP D&D or the ability to punch mouse in CRPGs) is separate from the games inner reality, which is the more important divider to true RPGs and what some would call RPG simulators.




Just so that I can understand your point better, can you give a PnP example other than miniatures. Because I don't tend to use miniatures.



			
				Galieo said:
			
		

> 1.  Visual representation--the computer game is the complete definition of the setting, actors, etc.; while the tabletop game does not provide such a defined experience.  This may explain some posters discomfort with miniatures and the like, in the sense that the visual aids "limit" their imagination.
> 
> No matter how descriptive the tabletop DM is, there will always be a gap between the verbal description and the mental image that player has.  Such a gap, and the opportunity  to fill it, does not occur in a computer game.




But then, what about IF or MUDs?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you cracked open the RAW of any edition, and only allowed actions to be resolved by the RAW, and only allowed actions that were specifically contained in the RAW, you would have a good simulation of a computer game.




Having revisited it during roughly the last year, I was surprised by how good a CRPG I thought you could make simply by implementing nigh verbatim the 1981 Basic & Expert sets. It would be different from the game my group & I played last year in some vital ways, though.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't understand why the difference MATTERS, aside from pedantry, semantic debate, and a smug sense of superiority calling electronic games "not true RPG's."




Just to be clear, I do not believe my use of the term "role-playing game" is in anyway superior to anyone else's. I merely expressed what _I_ generally mean when I use the term unqualified.



> There's a difference, absolutely. The person doing the adjudicating in D&D is a guy at the table while you play. The person doing the adjudicating in Final Fantasy is a team of programmers in Japan, years before.




FWIW, I always wince when I see the word "programmers" in this thread. Because there are so many people who sink so much into making a good CRPG. Writers, rule designers, artists, producers, &c. In fact, some writers & designers have been successful in _both_ the TRPG & CRPG worlds.

But then, I'm sure we all realize that. When we say "programmers" we really mean all those people. I just kind of felt it was worth acknowledging.

In any case: Yes. This is the difference.

And there is the potential for the TRPG GM to do the job worse than a CRPG. There's also the potential for the CRPG team to do the job better than many TRPG GMs. No doubt about that.



> That difference doesn't really matter to anyone. They're both RPG's. They have been known as such for almost equally as long (Final Fantasy just a few years later, or Dragon Warrior even before that).




The difference matters to me. In fact it is crucial. It is why I go out of my way to take time away from my family & my faith to play TRPGs yet I've never taken the time to finish Final Fantasy X. & finishing FFX would be a lot easier since it would not involve co-ordinating the schedules of 4 to 5 adults.

I want to understand the difference because I believe it can only help me improve my TRPG experience. (& maybe even my CRPG experience.)



> It's like saying graphic novels aren't really comic books, or that anime isn't really cartoons.




Heh! (^_^) Yeah, I've known people who will fight those arguments vehemenently.

P.S. It's too bad Dave Arneson doesn't participate in online fora as Gary does. I think he'd have some possibly unique insights to bring to this discussion.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

Slight derailment

I love the Heat Miser avatar Galieo... pure awsome!

Back to your regularly scheduled debate.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> You cannot meaningfully affect the game world in WoW nothing you break, burn, slay, etc. stays that way it all respawns and resets sometimes in mere minutes. When is the time this happened to you while playing DnD or Vampire?



I could easily create a D&D setting where, for weird magical reasons, monsters self-resurrect, and run a game based in that setting. Are you saying that I wouldn't be running a roleplaying game? In fact coming back from the dead with regularity is a distinctive feature of D&D compared to rpgs, something the game has always had in common with video games.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There's a difference, absolutely. The person doing the adjudicating in D&D is a guy at the table while you play. The person doing the adjudicating in Final Fantasy is a team of programmers in Japan, years before.



It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.


----------



## Galieo (Jul 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> But then, what about IF or MUDs?




Fair enough--Numion raised the point of Nethack and I agree that point deserves consideration.  I slightly revised my response to footnote it above and I'm happy to add IFs or MUDs where the visual representation is not intended to define the situation.  I do think that much of the conversation has revolved around WoW and the visually explicit.

I have not MUD'ed or IF'ed, so I will ask, do players generally interact through an imaginary filter?  Are the lines (e.g., "l" or "-") mentally redrawn by the player as mud-caked passages, rough-hewn rock walls, or the like?  If so, that is a strong knock against my point.  Numion's example was that s/he did not see the character as an "@," but rather the character.  

I suspect that it is the rare player who uses the imaginary filter in a computer game, but I could be wrong.



			
				Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Slight derailment
> 
> I love the Heat Miser avatar Galieo... pure awsome!
> 
> Back to your regularly scheduled debate.




Thanks--it is a happy childhood memory.  I'm partial to it and it does help lighten the mood.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The person doing the adjudicating in Final Fantasy is a team of programmers in Japan, years before.
> 
> That difference doesn't really matter to anyone.




If this thread proves nothing else, it proves the last statement quoted above to be categorically wrong.

RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I could easily create a D&D setting where, for weird magical reasons, monsters self-resurrect, and run a game based in that setting. Are you saying that I wouldn't be running a roleplaying game? In fact coming back from the dead with regularity is a distinctive feature of D&D compared to rpgs, something the game has always had in common with video games.




Yes I am sure if ones tries hard enough one can find or craft an exception to anything yet this doesn't really change anything.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> But an RPG itself is just a simulation, so its different. Unless you think people playing Final Fantasy are playing a simulation of a simulation! But, no, a simulation of D&D would be playing a game where you control a _player_ who then controls a _PC_. That would be a simulation of D&D. What's going on is not pretending to be pretending. In SWSE I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In KOTOR I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In neither case am I pretending to be playing a game in which I'm pretending to be Roland the Jedi.




Except that this is exactly the effect of having that team of guys in Japan program the game years before it is played.

In a role-playing game, I am directly controlling a PC, and am able to attempt any action that I can think of, with a degree of success depending upon how clever and difficult that action is judged to be.

In a computer game, I am controlling a PC whose actions are limited by the actions that the programmer(s) could think of.  In essence, I am playing following the limitations and script of another player, engaging in a simulation of a simulation.

And that, as you point out, is the difference.  A DM who can adjudicate my choices _now_ allows _me_ to make the decisions as to what I should be able to try.  That makes me the player.  The program has already encoded the potential decisions, and I am merely "looking" for what the primary player (programer) I am simulating is allowed to do. 

RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.




So where are you going with this are you saying that an RPG doesn't require a DM or are you saying that the computer or server is the DM?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 27, 2007)

> The difference matters to me. In fact it is crucial. It is why I go out of my way to take time away from my family & my faith to play TRPGs yet I've never taken the time to finish Final Fantasy X. & finishing FFX would be a lot easier since it would not involve co-ordinating the schedules of 4 to 5 adults.
> 
> I want to understand the difference because I believe it can only help me improve my TRPG experience. (& maybe even my CRPG experience.)




It's a little bizarre that anyone would take time away from family or faith to play a game.

But more to the point, what I see is you expressing a *preference* for a certain type of RPG. That's okay, but it doesn't really require you to re-define what "RPG" is accepted to mean.  Why re-define the word to be so exclusive if all of it really is simply a case for which one you like better? 

You haven't bothered to beat FFX, and you'd rather go over to Eddie's house and game, you can notice the difference between the games without calling one a "TRUE RPG" and the other one some sort of "Untrue RPG" (which is, despite your intentions, pretty condescending). 



> It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.




The Square team that created Final Fantasy told you what world you'd be in, what character classes are available, and what adventures to go on. It gave villains and NPC's lines ("I, GARLAND, WILL KNOCK YOU DOWN!") and it gave the setting coherence as it gives descriptions of the events and world you interact with.

DMs do the same thing. Certainly, that's more than the D&D core rulebooks do.

The Square team is kind of a railroady DM (there's only one main adventure and you pretty much have to do it, since there's nothing else to do other than combat, but sometimes there are hidden combats or secret adventures you can find or not), but those who play like the stories, so they'll be happily lead by the nose.

Compare this with some other computer RPG's, and you have DMs who aren't as railroady, like the ones in Ultimta Online or even WoW.



> If this thread proves nothing else, it proves the last statement quoted above to be categorically wrong.




True enough, I suppose I was using overly large brush strokes there. I guess it would be more correct to say that no one outside of a hardcore obsessive fan-base accepts the notion that these are truly deep divides.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I could easily create a D&D setting where, for weird magical reasons, monsters self-resurrect, and run a game based in that setting.





Yes, you could.  And, presumably, that would be you making the decision to do so, and it would be a decision that you and your group could change at any time during the game.  In other words, your statement that you were going to run such a game would in no way mandate you to disallow PCs to change the status quo.

Moreover, in order to follow the cRPG model, you would have to devise a list of potential actions and potential solutions to all problems, as well as preordain how each item of equipment can be used.

However, for all that you might argue that cRPGs are RPGs, I doubt very much that you would run such a game, or that you could find players for such a game as a tabletop game.  When people sit down to a role-playing game, they expect a bit more.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

It should be noted that with a crpg the developer team can still be surprised by player actions. For example:

1) Exploits. Bugs which allow players to cheat.
2) Combinations with unanticipated consequences. Much like the combo of Frenzied Berserker, Robilar's Gambit and Deft Opportunist described in another thread.

Player actions in a human rpg are not without limitations. They are limited by:

1) The rules of the game world, its physics.
2) The rules of genre.
3) The game rules.
4) The DM.
5) The other players.

This can actually mean a player is more limited in a human rpg. For instance I might want my PC to do something that's allowed by the rules but that the DM thinks is implausible or unbalancing. In such a case, the presence of the DM isn't enhancing player freedom. It's an additional limitation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The Square team that created Final Fantasy told you what world you'd be in, what character classes are available, and what adventures to go on. It gave villains and NPC's lines ("I, GARLAND, WILL KNOCK YOU DOWN!") and it gave the setting coherence as it gives descriptions of the events and world you interact with.
> 
> DMs do the same thing. Certainly, that's more than the D&D core rulebooks do.




In a role-playing game, the NPCs are able to ad lib lines (through the DM) and _respond to what the players say_.  They can also change their actions based upon what the players do.  Since, in a role-playing game, there is an infinite number of things that the players can say, there is an infinite potential for responses.

Of course, I also wonder how you can suggest that something that prescripts not only the adventure you can do, but also how you can respond to that adventure, as well as what lines can be spoken (or reacted to) by any part is "kind of" railroady.

If you cannot see the difference between unlimited potential in terms of actions, dialogue, decision making, and ad lib, as well as an unlimited potential to create lasting and meaningful change in the game environment, as opposed to simulating a player who has already prescripted the potential actions, dialogue, and decisions you can make, I doubt I can make it clearer.

RC


----------



## RFisher (Jul 27, 2007)

Galieo said:
			
		

> I have not MUD'ed or IF'ed, so I will ask, do players generally interact through an imaginary filter?  Are the lines (e.g., "l" or "-") mentally redrawn by the player as mud-caked passages, rough-hewn rock walls, or the like?  If so, that is a strong knock against my point.  Numion's example was that s/he did not see the character as an "@," but rather the character.
> 
> I suspect that it is the rare player who uses the imaginary filter in a computer game, but I could be wrong.




OK, perhaps a transcript is warranted:



			
				Zork said:
			
		

> ZORK I: The Great Underground empire
> Copyright (c) 1981, 1982, 1983 Infocom, Inc. All rights reserved.
> ZORK is a registered trademark of Infocom, Inc.
> Revision 88 / Serial number 840726
> ...




The *bold* bits were typed by the user. The rest were printed by the game.

Interactive fiction (IF) is the new-fangled buzz-word for "text adventure games". They are (generally) text-based. The computer doesn't present visual representation of things, merely text describing them. The user acts by typing (pidgin) English sentences. (Though there are shortcuts for common commands.)

It's a form that can't commercially compete anymore. There are some interesting developments in the amatuer IF world, though. I thought Galatea was quite interesting.

I tend to think of TRPGs as IF with a person taking the computer's role.

MUDs are (at least when I was into them) very similar to IF except that they are multi-player. Most have features that allowed a player with permission (sometimes called "a wizard") to build the world from within the game. In the ones I enjoyed the most, pretty much everyone was a wizard & had a portion of the world they could build as they saw fit.

The only limit to what you could create were what you could describe. Although, getting the game engine to give appropriate responses to other players' interactions with your creations was the real limit. & also--for me--the challenge. LamdaMOO had a pretty sophisticated programming language that could let you do a whole lot, though.

There was a Star Trek MUSH that the users used as a medium for role-playing. I would count it more akin to playing a TRPG via WebRPG than to something like a MMORPG, though. The "rules" of the role-playing tended to be enforced more by consensus than by the software.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a little bizarre that anyone would take time away from family or faith to play a game.




Both understand the importance of recreation.



> But more to the point, what I see is you expressing a *preference* for a certain type of RPG. That's okay, but it doesn't really require you to re-define what "RPG" is accepted to mean.  Why re-define the word to be so exclusive if all of it really is simply a case for which one you like better?




Yes, I am expressing a preference. I am not redefining anything. I have merely stated what "RPG" means to me--what it has _always_ meant to me. I have been very careful to try & not take issue with how other people use or define terms. Because--for me--that's an insignificant detail. What I care about is understanding what the differences & similarities are.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 27, 2007)

> Yes, you could. And, presumably, that would be you making the decision to do so, and it would be a decision that you and your group could change at any time during the game. In other words, your statement that you were going to run such a game would in no way mandate you to disallow PCs to change the status quo.
> ...
> However, for all that you might argue that cRPGs are RPGs, I doubt very much that you would run such a game, or that you could find players for such a game as a tabletop game. When people sit down to a role-playing game, they expect a bit more.




...well, THAT sounds pretty presumptuous and arrogant to me!

There's only a superficial difference between a re-spawning mob in WoW and two rolls on a random encounter table that specify the same creature twice. NEITHER really pays attention to some sort of self-sustaining ecosystem of monsters.

And PC's can change the status quo in CRPG's: they slay the boss, they save the world. 



> In a role-playing game, the NPCs are able to ad lib lines (through the DM) and respond to what the players say. They can also change their actions based upon what the players do. Since, in a role-playing game, there is an infinite number of things that the players can say, there is an infinite potential for responses.




Infinite potential is one of the differences between railroading and open DMing. Certainly, a DM who plays more to the open side is using the advantage that he's actually there to it's greatest potential. A DM who has a heavier hand might only allow character choice within a very limited region. Like Doug pointed out, a human DM can be even MORE limiting than a computer DM. 



> Of course, I also wonder how you can suggest that something that prescripts not only the adventure you can do, but also how you can respond to that adventure, as well as what lines can be spoken (or reacted to) by any part is "kind of" railroady.




It's railroading. The question is whether or not that's a problem. FFX was criticized for being too "linear," which is CRPG lingo for railroading, while a game like FFXII is largely considered to be open enough to have hours of fun in outside of the main plot, and FFXI spends MONTHS of time aside from the main storyline. 

People enjoy non-linear gameplay just as they do in tabletop games, and more and more games are being able to deliver this. WoW does it quite well, in fact. Final Fantasy is one of those that has to balance a tendency to want to tell a good story with the idea that it's a game. It does better in some campaigns than in others. 



> If you cannot see the difference between unlimited potential in terms of actions, dialogue, decision making, and ad lib, as well as an unlimited potential to create lasting and meaningful change in the game environment, as opposed to simulating a player who has already prescripted the potential actions, dialogue, and decisions you can make, I doubt I can make it clearer.




I said there was a difference. I also said that aside from the obsessive hardcore fanbase, it doesn't matter to such a level as to require a distinction between TRUE and FALSE RPG's. So there's no reason for this thread to bother making a distinction, either, really.


----------



## Halivar (Jul 27, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Interactive fiction (IF) is the new-fangled buzz-word for "text adventure games". They are (generally) text-based. The computer doesn't present visual representation of things, merely text describing them. The user acts by typing (pidgin) English sentences. (Though there are shortcuts for common commands.)



Man, I wish more EnWorlder's were into IF. If anyone could come up with some really great IF, it'd be the forum.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It should be noted that with a crpg the developer team can still be surprised by player actions. For example:
> 
> 1) Exploits. Bugs which allow players to cheat.
> 2) Combinations with unanticipated consequences. Much like the combo of Frenzied Berserker, Robilar's Gambit and Deft Opportunist described in another thread.




Not if these do not already exist in the program.  You are basically saying here that you can have a rpg where the only real (non-simulation of programmer player) decisions are based on cheating and errors in the program.  This sort of definition makes the term meaningless.

Explain to me how Monopoly, Chess, and eating ham sandwiches are not roleplaying games.



> Player actions in a human rpg are not without limitations. They are limited by:
> 
> 1) The rules of the game world, its physics.
> 2) The rules of genre.
> 3) The game rules.




Not so.  Any of the above can be overridden during game play.  Grab the 1e modules, for example, and you can see examples of each and every one of the above being overridden because the author thought it desireable to do so for the purposes of game play.  Then talk to people who played those modules, and see how the DMs changed them if they like because they thought it desireable to do so for the purposes of game play.  Then talk to the players who did things unforseen by either module writer or DM, and got unexpected results, because all involved thought it desireable to do so for the purposes of game play.

The only true limitations to a role-playing game are



> 4) The DM.
> 5) The other players.




And once you realize that the DM _*is*_ one of the other players, that limitation is pretty small.  It is also, note, the defining limitation of "rpgs" as Gary defined it, and as I define it.

You may think that this can actually mean a player is more limited in a role-playing game than while playing a computer game, but the fact is that your example offers no point-by-point comparison, and if you do a point-by-point comparison you could literally fill the internet with the freedoms offered by a role-playing game while simultaneously filling the internet once again with the limitation offered by a computer game.

Infinite possibilities, which contain a few limitations based upon the makeup of your group, are still infinite possibilities.

Absolute restrictions to actions, which contain several hundred possibilities, are still absolute restrictions.

One is playing a role-playing game.  The other is simulating the decisions of a player (programmer) playing a role-playing game.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 27, 2007)

When they invent a computer game where my character can decide on a whim that he likes the cute daughter of _that shopkeeper over there_, can woo and win her  then I'll say that CRPGs are actual RPGs. 

Until things like these can occur, then there really is no discussion here: CRPGs are not RPGs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> When they invent a computer game where my character can decide on a whim that he likes the cute daughter of _that shopkeeper over there_, can woo and win her  then I'll say that CRPGs are actual RPGs.
> 
> Until things like these can occur, then there really is no discussion here: CRPGs are not RPGs.




Well said.

And on that note, unless something new & interesting is said on the subject, I'm going to follow the lead of wiser heads and retire to the sidelines.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...well, THAT sounds pretty presumptuous and arrogant to me!
> 
> There's only a superficial difference between a re-spawning mob in WoW and two rolls on a random encounter table that specify the same creature twice. NEITHER really pays attention to some sort of self-sustaining ecosystem of monsters.
> 
> And PC's can change the status quo in CRPG's: they slay the boss, they save the world.




No it's not a superficial  difference when in DnD you kill the clerk in the potion shop he stays dead but in WoW you you can't hit him or affect him in any meaningful way execpt to give him money for potions.
In DnD you can kill the boss and save the world in WoW you kill the same boss over and over again to get different items off his loot table to complete you or your friends set. You really see no difference here?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 27, 2007)

Galieo said:
			
		

> Nope, I think the exact opposite.



Thanks for the clarification, I was misreading into what you said...

Your actual point reminds me how cool it is to hear my about homebrew setting as told by the players. It's a far more interesting place than the one I described to them.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 27, 2007)

> No it's not a superficial difference when in DnD you kill the clerk in the potion shop he stays dead but in WoW you you can't hit him or affect him in any meaningful way execpt to give him money for potions.
> In DnD you can kill the boss and save the world in WoW you kill the same boss over and over again to get different items off his loot table to complete you or your friends set. You really see no difference here?




I said there was a difference. I said that difference didn't matter enough, outside of a hardcore obsessive fanbase, to bother making a distinction betwen TRUE and FALSE RPG's. 

I kill a boss in Final Fantasy he stays dead. I kill the Earth Fiend, the peasant's fields start to re-grow. The dialogue with them changes. 

WoW, though it has great open-endedness, certainly falls short in empowering the player to change the world. Kind of like DM's who wouldn't let you kill Orcus because he had some sort of BS "can only be TRULY killed on his HOME PLANE" loophole. 

I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying they're similar enough that the distinction that already exists between computer RPG's and tabletop RPG's is sufficient, and we don't really need to bother calling one "really" RPG's and the others just "pretending to be" RPG's, unless we want to get pedantic and condescending about *true* *role* *playing* like some Vampire LARPer looking down his nose at the people who roll dice around a table.


----------



## Halivar (Jul 27, 2007)

RPG's are in the eye of the player. When I play Ultima 7, with all of its shortcomings, I adopt a persona, I create goals completely separate from the main game quest, and I try to assume my role as completely as I can. _For me_ Ultima 7 in a role-playing game. Not because of what the programmers intended, but because of what I put into it.

Conversely, in my Friday night D&D game, we have two players who hate role-play (one player has even outright said it aloud). They don't want story, or immersion; they enjoy the strategic challenge of combat, and will pull out comic books to read during the sessions in between fights. _For these people_ D&D is *not* an RPG.

If you can immerse and role-assume with a reasonable suspension of disbelief, you're playing an RPG. If you can't, you aren't.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> When they invent a computer game where my character can decide on a whim that he likes the cute daughter of _that shopkeeper over there_, can woo and win her  then I'll say that CRPGs are actual RPGs.



You can do that in Fable.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

The difference is quite large and has nothing to do with hardcore or obsessive. If you want WoW as an RPG there are books you can buy to get it done and when you play that way and Kill the boss you can't go back an hour later and off him again and again, and again. When you play that way you can talk to the potion seller haggle for his goods perhaps even barter.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> No it's not a superficial  difference when in DnD you kill the clerk in the potion shop he stays dead but in WoW you you can't hit him or affect him in any meaningful way execpt to give him money for potions.
> In DnD you can kill the boss and save the world in WoW you kill the same boss over and over again to get different items off his loot table to complete you or your friends set. You really see no difference here?



This would just be a reason why certain MMORPGS aren't RPGs. I believe some, such as Second Life (which I've not played) do allow you to change the environment by creating your own buildings.

In many non-mmo crpgs named npcs stay dead when they're killed. In Morrowind completing the main quest permanently changes the colour of the sky from red (due to persistent volcanic eruptions) to blue.

Or are you saying that WoW isn't a true rpg, but Second Life and Morrowind are?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> No it's not a superficial  difference when in DnD you kill the clerk in the potion shop he stays dead



At least until Raise Dead is cast on him.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This would just be a reason why certain MMORPGS aren't RPGs. I believe some, such as Second Life (which I've not played) do allow you to change the environment by creating your own buildings.
> 
> In many non-mmo crpgs named npcs stay dead when they're killed. In Morrowind completing the main quest permanently changes the colour of the sky from red (due to persistent volcanic eruptions) to blue.
> 
> Or are you saying that WoW isn't a true rpg, but Second Life and Morrowind are?




I was speaking specifically to WoW because I have extensive first hand experience playing it and because the 5 million players were being used to inflate the total number of people playing RPGs earlier in the thread. Many of the games that have been mentioned I have no first hand experience with so I would not feel comfortable speaking to thier "classification". I will say that when NWN first came out I had very high hopes for the Solstice Tool Set and what it might mean to the evolution of RPGs but for me it never delivered. The concept for the evolution to the next level seemed to be there. People have mentioned NWN servers with live DMs in game controlling the enviroment and that certainly sounds like it is pushing the envelope but I have not experienced it first hand sadly.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Ok so if your ready call my cell phone and John Madden Football an RPG then I am willing to buy the notion that WoW is one as well they all bring about as much to the discussion.




Going back to that.



			
				Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Ok so lets call John Madden Football an RPG too right after all Im pretending to be Tom Brady and company right? Even better next time I'm out of town on business and call the wife for some adult converstion there can and usually is role playing going on so lets call the telephone an RPG too. Sorry there are limits.




Generally speaking, RPGs in the video game world are usually marked by the ability to level up. This is one reason Ninja Gaiden isn't one. While in Ninja Gaiden you gain new abilities and there is a story, there are no "levels" to gain. The same is true of God of War which isn't considered an RPG because, while your equipment and spells level, the character doesn't. This is why Oblivion is an RPG instead of a FPS. This doesn't always apply, but its a good guideline to follow.



			
				Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Ok so if your ready call my cell phone and John Madden Football an RPG then I am willing to buy the notion that WoW is one as well they all bring about as much to the discussion.




I'm saying that total freedom is a _really really bad_ definition for roleplaying game.

Here's a good one, in my mind:
1) Assumed role of a character or characters
2) Some kind of codified rules that determine success/failure or similar
3) Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats

I think this accurately depicts the emergence of roleplaying from wargaming.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In a computer game, I am controlling a PC whose actions are limited by the actions that the programmer(s) could think of.  In essence, I am playing following the limitations and script of another player, engaging in a simulation of a simulation.




No, you're limited by the rules of the game, not some nebulous "other player." If you were to ask gamers who is playing Xenogears while they hold the controller in their hand, how many do you think are going to say that there's this guy inside their Playstation who is really playing the game?

I don't buy the "unlimited possibilities" requirement of a game to be an RPG. That might be an important quality for your preference, but to use it as a defining characteristic that cannot be done without sounds very elitist. So if others don't care about unlimited possibilities they don't understand the "truth" or some such. When you pick up a wargame and say "Hey, I'm going to call this soldier here Bob!" that is a basic roleplaying game.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. *With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.*



BINGO! YOU'VE GOT IT! That's the gateway that creates an actual role-playing game. In a role-playing game, the RAW are just tools and guidelines for arbitrating player activity; the game master, a live human being, is required to be there interacting with the other players. No set of rules or video game engine can capture the infinite variety of actions, situations, circumstances, and so on that human imagination and social interaction can create.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 27, 2007)

Halivar said:
			
		

> RPG's are in the eye of the player. When I play Ultima 7, with all of its shortcomings, I adopt a persona, I create goals completely separate from the main game quest, and I try to assume my role as completely as I can. _For me_ Ultima 7 in a role-playing game. Not because of what the programmers intended, but because of what I put into it.
> 
> Conversely, in my Friday night D&D game, we have two players who hate role-play (one player has even outright said it aloud). They don't want story, or immersion; they enjoy the strategic challenge of combat, and will pull out comic books to read during the sessions in between fights. _For these people_ D&D is *not* an RPG.
> 
> If you can immerse and role-assume with a reasonable suspension of disbelief, you're playing an RPG. If you can't, you aren't.



"Role assumption" and "role immersion" (or "play-acting") are not the whole of nor are synonyms for "role-playing." The presence or absence of role assumption and/or role immersion is not the dividing line between role-playing games and non-role-playing games.

Playing D&D wholly "strategically" (whether in combat, dungeon crawling, etc.) is still role-playing _because of the nature of the game itself_.




****************************

Hey Raven Crowking, how's the beer at the tavern? I think I'll join you.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> "Role assumption" and "role immersion" (or "play-acting") are not the whole of nor are synonyms for "role-playing."




Right. Role assumption + rules = roleplaying game. Thus you have your roleplaying. "You got your lets pretend in my rules!" "You got your rules in my lets pretend!" And then enjoy the yummy goodness.

In my mind, it is wholly possible to have a single player (no GM) roleplaying game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Here's a good one, in my mind:
> 1) Assumed role of a character or characters
> 2) Some kind of codified rules that determine success/failure or similar
> 3) Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats
> ...




I believe that the restrictions of codified rules vs. the ability to modify the rules during play is one of the defining differences between wargames and role-playing games.  Thus, I would say that the better definition would be:

1)  Assumed role of a character or characters.
2)  Some kind of codified rules that aid in, but are not the arbiter of, success/failure or similar.
3)  Series of encounters in which success is at least partially dependent on said rules, and at least partially dependent upon the judgement of the participants independent of the rules.  This last includes the ability to allow participant (including DM) judgement to supercede the codified rules at any time during the game that the participants feel is appropriate.

EDIT:  Nor is the open-ended nature of play a new addendum to the definition to exclude computer games.  In the 1e PHB, p. 8 (1978), Gary Gygax writes:  "This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried.  In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only.  This is part of the attraction of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, *and it is integral to the game*."  Emphasis mine.



> No, you're limited by the rules of the game, not some nebulous "other player."




The other player isn't nebulous; it is one or more persons listed in the design credits.



> If you were to ask gamers who is playing Xenogears while they hold the controller in their hand, how many do you think are going to say that there's this guy inside their Playstation who is really playing the game?




None.  _They_ are playing Xenogears, and Xenogears is a simulation of a RPG.  Similarly, in a football game, if you ask anyone who is playing John Madden, very few (if any) will say that there's this guy who is really playing the game.  This is an exact parallel.



> I don't buy the "unlimited possibilities" requirement of a game to be an RPG. That might be an important quality for your preference, but to use it as a defining characteristic that cannot be done without sounds very elitist.




There goes the "wrongbadfun" argument.  If I say that cRPGs are not RPGs, that is a matter of definition.  Saying that X is not the same as Y does not confer any value to either X or Y.  It says that they are not the same thing.

Saying "apples are not oranges" doesn't make me an apple elitist.  When I say "apples are not oranges" and you say "I don't buy that whole non-citrus thing about apples; what an elitist you must be" it says very little about the value of my argument.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I believe that the restrictions of codified rules vs. the ability to modify the rules during play is one of the defining differences between wargames and role-playing games.




I disagree, and I think this is going to be another one of those irreconcilable things. I don't think rules have to be malleable for a game to be a roleplaying game. I can't even wrap my mind around why that would be a possible requirement. 



> There goes the "wrongbadfun" argument.  If I say that cRPGs are not RPGs, that is a matter of definition.  Saying that X is not the same as Y does not confer any value to either X or Y.  It says that they are not the same thing.
> 
> Saying "apples are not oranges" doesn't make me an apple elitist.  When I say "apples are not oranges" and you say "I don't buy that whole non-citrus thing about apples; what an elitist you must be" it says very little about the value of my argument.




Except there is no definition to be drawn from. We're really just debating opinions, not looking at any real definitions. I don't think this can even be considered a semantics argument since there is no "true" meaning! Mine just happens to coincide with what the majority of people consider to be RPGs. 

Mostly what I don't understand is why you want to use a definition that is different than the generally accepted definition. How many people have to use a term differently than its initial creation before the word's definition changes? How long? That's why it seems a bit elitist, not because you're excluding computer games, but because people at large consider computer games to fall into the roleplaying game category. If there was any debate on this issue, then that's one thing, but really you aren't going to find much of any unless you look very hard.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm saying that total freedom is a really really bad definition for roleplaying game.
> 
> Here's a good one, in my mind:
> 1) Assumed role of a character or characters
> ...




If you are really interested in keeping this open as a discussion, try answering the following:

How is this different from a wargame?  I assume that, in a wargame, I assume the role of an army or the commanding general of that army.  There are codified rules that determine success/failure or similar.  There are a series of encounters (engagements) in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats (ex. infantry vs. armor).

How is this different from Monopoly?  In Monopoly, I take the role of a real estate tycoon.  There are codified rules.  My "stats" are monetary and properties owned, which certainly have an effect on success in a series of encounters (turns, where you "encounter" various properties and parts of the board, and may encounter houses and hotels to boot).

How is this different from Chess?  In Chess, I take the role of two knights, two bishops, two rooks, a king, a queen, and eight pawns.  Each of these characters has different "stats" (moves allowed, plus special abilities such as castling, and limitation such as not being able to move into check) that materially affect success.  Each new configuration of the board is a new "encounter".

How is this different from eating ham sandwiches?  When eating a ham sandwich, I take the role of a hungry person and of various ham sandwiches.  Each sandwich has flavour stats depending upon how I make it that materially affect whether or not I can succeed in choking it down.  Each sandwich is a new encounter.  Indeed, depending upon how the sandwich is made, each _bite_ can be a new encounter.

Now, I admit that I am joking about the ham sandwich (which has no codified rules), but I _have_ seen the Monopoly and Chess arguments pushed forward seriously here on EN World.  So, I have to ask....do you think they are RPGs, and if not, why not?


RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 27, 2007)

Depends on the CRPG, doesn't it?  

Personally, the Ultima series from 5 on to 7 looked like a pretty good CRPG series to me. Especially after 6, when the world became pretty much interactive on levels that would be viewed unnecessary in P&P RPGs. "You want to do _what_? Bake bread? While the Gargoyles are running over the Kingdom? Are you serious, Avatar?"  Sure, NPC reactions and backgrounds were still scripted, but even that became pretty extensive. After being flirted at by some Royal Minter in U6, I started thinking twice before engaging in deeper conversation with some female NPCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I disagree, and I think this is going to be another one of those irreconcilable things. I don't think rules have to be malleable for a game to be a roleplaying game. I can't even wrap my mind around why that would be a possible requirement.




You know, I wanted to write the definitive answer, but I don't know that I have the talent to do that.  All I can say is that, if this is true, then we'll have to agree to disagree.  



> Except there is no definition to be drawn from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How is this different from a wargame?  I assume that, in a wargame, I assume the role of an army or the commanding general of that army.  There are codified rules that determine success/failure or similar.  There are a series of encounters (engagements) in which success is at least partially dependent on character stats (ex. infantry vs. armor).




I'm not experienced with wargames, but I assume the main point is not to control a character or characters, but to play through a single scenario. Note that above I did say that if you start calling your character "Bob" you're now playing a roleplaying game.

But, the main difference is going to be the intent of the game. You can use a wargame to roleplay, but you aren't using it as intended, therefore it isn't a roleplaying game. Assuming an actual role where  you start to think about yourself as a war leader, ordering men on the battlefield and such, then I would assume its moved into the realm of roleplaying game, even if it is still a competition between players with no GM.



> How is this different from Monopoly?  In Monopoly, I take the role of a real estate tycoon. There are codified rules.  My "stats" are monetary and properties owned, which certainly have an effect on success in a series of encounters (turns, where you "encounter" various properties and parts of the board, and may encounter houses and hotels to boot).




Money and property aren't your character's stats. Note above my point about how God of War and Ninja Gaiden don't qualify even though equipment has stats. The character needs stats which are used in some way to determine challenges. This can be as simple as a free form list of what the PC is good at to a codified skill system.

The stats have to be intrinsic to the character for a very good reason, because many games have some kind of numbers that are tracked to determine outcomes. But, because in a roleplaying game you're taking over a persona, there being some kind of rules regarding that persona is important, which take the form of stats. Can your character do X is answered based on these rules.

It also isn't, again, the intent of the game to roleplay.



> How is this different from Chess?  In Chess, I take the role of two knights, two bishops, two rooks, a king, a queen, and eight pawns.  Each of these characters has different "stats" (moves allowed, plus special abilities such as castling, and limitation such as not being able to move into check) that materially affect success.  Each new configuration of the board is a new "encounter".




You aren't taking the role of those pieces any more than in backgammon you're taking the role of little disks or in poker you're taking the roll of kings, queens, and numbers. There is a very different thing in saying "I am a bishop" and "I move my bishop."

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

So now that I've attempted to clarify it.

A little bit about the simulation of a simulation thing. There is a game out there which, I think, is considered a simulation of RPGs: Munchkin. Note that it can probably qualify by my rules above. Why don't I consider it an RPG? Because it is quite explicitly a simulation or parody of roleplaying games. In fact, in this game, you are pretending to play pretend. I don't see anything like this in video gaming, and that's what I would consider the simulation ala Madden football example.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The guy who coined the term "role-playing games" offered one, as I recall.  So did I.  So did you.




Because its helpful to know where we stand.



> First off, you have yet to demonstrate that yours is the generally accepted definition.  I certainly agree that those who make and sell computer games wish it to be.




Would you or would you not say that there are more people who play video games than play tabletop roleplaying games?



> Second, if a word has one meaning, and then another meaning comes along, that word now has two definitions rather than one.  The original meaning does not somehow change, and when used in the context of the original meaning, it is still the original meaning that applies.  This is true for every word and term, not just RPGs, and is part of the way language works.




If there are two definitions of "roleplaying game" one encompassing tabletop games and one encompassing video games, how does that make video games _not_ roleplaying games? Definitions expand over time. I believe, for example, "their" is now acceptable as a singular, no matter how much I wish it weren't.



> Finally, if people started selling apples as oranges, how long would it take you to agree that there was no difference between the two?




I think more of it along these lines: If people started referring to all fruit as "apples" for whatever reason, how long until calling an orange an apple would be permissable?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

How free is the man who chooses to curtail his own freedom? The players (including GM) of a rpg are a bit like a poet who chooses to write in the sonnet form. By adopting a set of rules, whether published or house rules doesn't really matter, they have chosen to limit themselves. Then once those rules are adopted the players (again including GM) can actually find their wishes thwarted by those rules. Their options have been limited by their own previous decisions.

Surely a group that adopts a more detailed rule set, such as 3e or GURPS or HERO and has a custom of following those rules rather than being more easy going, is much less free than the make-things-up-as-you-go ignore the rules type of group with a system such as Amber?

And yet they are both playing a rpg. Therefore can what is integral to rpgs be found in freedom?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> And yet they are both playing a rpg. Therefore can what is integral to rpgs be found in freedom?




Huh, based on what you said, I would say "rules."

EDIT: That's what separates "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians" from being roleplaying games after all.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  That If/Then statement was included for a reason.  However, if you argue that no one has the authority to definitively define the term, you must also accept that one cannot definitively define what the term includes or does not include.




Reasonable and rational people don't need to be "definitive" in order to have meaningful, constructive, and useful conversation on a topic.  Humans are very good at pattern matching on their own, without having to shoehorn their thinking too much before the fact by overly specific definitions of terms.

Returning to the literary analogy again - fans, writers, critics and teachers have for years been able to work with the concepts of genres without ever having one fully comprehensive "definitive definition".  If I say 'Sci-fi', just about everyone here has a clue about what I'm saying, though there's no objective definition that allows us to corral all stories to being either in the genre or outside the genre.

The real boggle is this - there are already terms that define the experience Mr. Gygax is talking about: Tabletop (or pen and paper) RPG and Live action RPG.  Functionally, nobody has yet demonstrated a need to redefine the root term to exclude computer games.  The computer games are already recognized as being somewhat different from the others, just as live action games are considered different from tabletop.  

So, other than the value of rooting around to see what various people may consider to be an RPG or not (and thus come closer to understanding the consensus definition), what is the point of trying to separate them out?  What purpose is served?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm not experienced with wargames, but I assume the main point is not to control a character or characters, but to play through a single scenario.




In some cases, you play through a series of scenarios, each player taking on a side, and the effects of one scenario carry through into the later scenarios.



> Money and property aren't your character's stats.




Why not?  I would assume that stats are any method of differentiating the abilities of one character instead of another.  In fact, I can see no difference between what you wrote:

But, because in a roleplaying game you're taking over a persona, there being some kind of rules regarding that persona is important, which take the form of stats. Can your character do X is answered based on these rules.​
and my using money to determine whether or not I can pay your rent, and my using property to determine whether or not I can charge you rent.  In effect, property is like armament, and money like hit points.



> You aren't taking the role of those pieces any more than in backgammon you're taking the role of little disks or in poker you're taking the roll of kings, queens, and numbers. There is a very different thing in saying "I am a bishop" and "I move my bishop."




I've heard the exact opposite argued here on EN World by someone trying to prove that cRPGs were RPGs.

I'm not sure that I buy your comments about the intent of the game writers.  First off, I have played board games where the game is described as "players take the role of....".  Secondly, this distinction isn't part of your definition.  Thirdly, I am in no way convinced that the intent of the game writers is relevant at all; I would argue that the definition of a game genre follows function, not intent.



> A little bit about the simulation of a simulation thing. There is a game out there which, I think, is considered a simulation of RPGs: Munchkin. Note that it can probably qualify by my rules above. Why don't I consider it an RPG? Because it is quite explicitly a simulation or parody of roleplaying games. In fact, in this game, you are pretending to play pretend. I don't see anything like this in video gaming, and that's what I would consider the simulation ala Madden football example.




It would be strange indeed for a game manufacturer trying to sell to the existing RPG customer base to claim that their game _is not_ a role-playing game.

I would go further, but as you cannot see how the limitations of programming form an artificial barrier between you and the character, so that you are playing not the character, but the programmer's conception of the character, it would be difficult to describe in a way that you would understand why I think you nailed it on the head:

A cRPG is to RPGs what cFOOTBALL is to football.  

I am afraid that the wisest course is to agree to disagree.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Would you or would you not say that there are more people who play video games than play tabletop roleplaying games?




I honestly don't know, and any guess I might make would be pulled from my.....ear.  



> If there are two definitions of "roleplaying game" one encompassing tabletop games and one encompassing video games, how does that make video games _not_ roleplaying games? Definitions expand over time. I believe, for example, "their" is now acceptable as a singular, no matter how much I wish it weren't.




Given your definition, I would agree that video games may be RPGs.  But, please recall that the context of the question arises in relation to Mr. Gygax's comments about the decline of RPGs.  And, given that context, no matter how many people call apples oranges, saying that there are a whole lot of apples out there doesn't mean that oranges haven't declined.

It is certainly "permissable" for you to call anything you like a role-playing game.  Just as it is "permissable" for you to restrict that definition however you like.  I could go back several pages on this thread and find my saying the same thing in several different ways.  However, _in context of Mr. Gygax's comments and the refutation thereof_ this is, IMHO, immaterial.

So, yes, I think that Mr. Gygax's definition is the preferable one.  And, yes, I agree (once more) that _another_ definition of the same term is now in use that encompasses things that the first does not.  However, that does not make the items in the second definition RPGs under the first.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 27, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Reasonable and rational people don't need to be "definitive" in order to have meaningful, constructive, and useful conversation on a topic.





Reasonable people would have left this conversation long ago.  

Where definition comes in is in the original context of Mr. Gygax's statement that RPGs were declining.  If Mr. Gygax's statement is taken to mean RPGs as they were originally defined, and a refutation is based upon a change in that definition, then in effect one can say that apples are not declining because there are lots of oranges.

Though, of course, the original context of the debate (and the reasons for Mr. Gygax's statement) have perhaps long been forgotten, and perhaps for the best, with the original title of this thread.

And now, Gentlegamer, I really shall meet you in the bar.........


RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 27, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> When they invent a computer game where my character can decide on a whim that he likes the cute daughter of _that shopkeeper over there_, can woo and win her  then I'll say that CRPGs are actual RPGs.
> 
> Until things like these can occur, then there really is no discussion here: CRPGs are not RPGs.




You couldn't do that in _my_ D&D game. 





What? I'm not comfortable playing romance RP with male players. Kinda gay. 

Am I not running a roleplaying game in your opinion?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> You couldn't do that in _my_ D&D game.



Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make. Wherein lies the crux of the difference between pen-and-paper RPG's and CRPG's.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 27, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make. Wherein lies the crux of the difference between pen-and-paper RPG's and CRPG's.




How is making particular conscious decisions on limitations you'll implement any different than making a conscious choice to accept the limitations of a particular computer program?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 27, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make.




Except it's also a conscious choice on the part of the CRPG designer to not have "Random Shopkeeper Daughter X" be "romanceable," and to have [Important NPC X] actually be romanceable.


----------



## Numion (Jul 27, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Right, but that's a conscious choice on your part, the kind of thing a computer absolutely cannot make. Wherein lies the crux of the difference between pen-and-paper RPG's and CRPG's.




Not conscious choice. I think it's hardwired, but I don't know what the science is on _that_.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Destroy a castle in such a way that it remains destroyed forever, and can have no future effect on the game?




Absolutely.  It can be removed from the map the next time the server is reset (analogous to the DM changing the layout of the minis on his table in-between sessions) or, if destroying the castle is anticipated beforehand, the DM could just as easily create a map that has empty field where the castle used to be, and teleport the players there after it has been destroyed.



> Take an action that was unforseen by the programmers?  For example, in D&D there are only so many uses for equipment listed, but I am able to invent new uses for equipment, limited only to my imagination and the nature of the equipment itself.  The rules approximate a jug, for example, but do not define it, so that the DM can allow me to break the jug to use a shard to cut the ropes that bind me.




Since NWN absolutely allows you to just roll dice on your own, a DM could easily ask for a Strength check to break a jug followed by another to break the ropes (or a melee attack).

The DM could then dispel the Entangle effect affecting you.  While he may not be able to spawn an actual "pottery sherd" in your inventory, does that invalidate the process (especially given that, if he wanted to, he *could* spawn a dagger in your inventory and then hit you with a penalty on attack rolls)? 



> I'm sure I'll think of more, but I admit that I am somewhat ignorant of exactly how far the computer simulation engines have progressed, and am open to being convinced if there is a real argument to be made.




NWN is unique in that it was originally designed to be run by a DM and a group of players.  Given that a normal, table-top group probably has no problem abstracting out certain things (e.g., I don't need to have 40 pot minis in a room that I'm describing as "covered in pots"), there shouldn't be any problem doing the same thing in NWN.

Moreover, since the game's release, a group of coders has spent a lot of time working on a toolset called the DM-Friendly Initiative, which basically has the goal of making more and more of the game running accessible to the DM during play.

For instance, when creating an NWN module, you can set the lighting level in a particular region, and it's hard to change on the fly (while you and your players are actually moving through the module).  The DMFI tools allow you much more control over this, including creating new light sources on the fly.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 27, 2007)

*Steps out of the tavern*

The difference is, in a role-playing game, the shopkeeper's daughter can be placed as "setting window dressing" without any intention of her having any more importance than that.

Later, as play progresses, she can become more than that. The game master can respond extemporaneously to the player trying to woo her. The game master can either allow the wooing to go on or not (based on play-acting the girl . . . the girl could reject the advances!) or simply tell the player that such action is pointless because the game master won't participate in play-acting such a thing. 

The point is, you are not bound by what the original intention of what the shopkeeper's daughter was supposed to be. In a video game, the shopkeeper's daughter can do more than was predetermined by the programmer before you ever played the game.

*Steps back in the tavern*


----------



## Numion (Jul 27, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The point is, you are not bound by what the original intention of what the shopkeeper's daughter was supposed to be. In a video game, the shopkeeper's daughter can do more than was predetermined by the programmer before you ever played the game.




That's a pretty minor difference, which is only apparent from the DMs point of view. I mean, if a player approaches an NPC and finds her 'wooable' how's he going to know whether the DM had intended it? 

Anyways, I think Umbran got it right earlier. We can have tabletop RPGs, live action RPGs, computer RPGs. All are RPGs, yes, different, but still RPGs. Nobodys enjoyment would be lessened by that.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 27, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> because the game master won't participate in play-acting such a thing.




This is different from a CRPG in which you can never romance the barmaids how?

"Guys, I will never, ever roleplay a romantic encounter between you and a female NPC.  You can pretend like it happens, but it will never happen at my table."

"Guys, I will never, ever code the ability to have a romantic encounter between you and a female NPC.  You can pretend like it happens, but it will never happen at my table."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 27, 2007)

Further to the issue of freedom, we have to consider mods. These are huge in Morrowind, and I think NWN as well. They are developed for free by third parties and can be downloaded by anyone. These mods allow a user to change his interface, alter graphics, add geography, play lots of new scenarios and even change the rules of the game. Surely this is almost exactly the same as the ability of players in a human rpg to alter the rules?

The ones for MMORPGs don't allow you to change as much, just your control systems and the information the player receives. The limiting factor here is that there are many players, not just one, so you can't mess with the game as much. It's interesting that with crpgs, just as with human rpgs, the presence of more players becomes a major limiting factor on freedom.

In addition to mods, non-mmo crpgs will invariably allow the user to alter the settings, and tweak gameplay, such as by changing the difficulty level. Can you imagine, as a player, trying to change the difficulty level in a human rpg? Say you think an encounter is too hard for the party. Such players are slaughtered on this message board for 'whining' and having a 'sense of entitlement'.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 27, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> How is making particular conscious decisions on limitations you'll implement any different than making a conscious choice to accept the limitations of a particular computer program?




Because those conscious decisions on limitations do not have to be made prior to your purchase of the game in the store and can be changed at any time after purchasing the game in the store without further input from the game designer.  With a CRPG those decisions are all made before the product hits the shelf and are all irreversible barring modification of the game by the original designer (via a patch or whatever).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 27, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Because those conscious decisions on limitations do not have to be made prior to your purchase of the game in the store and can be changed at any time after purchasing the game in the store without further input from the game designer.  With a CRPG those decisions are all made before the product hits the shelf and are all irreversible barring modification of the game by the original designer (via a patch or whatever).




Or barring a mod made by the player or somebody else that modifies the behaviour of an NPC in a preferred way. Am bringing that up because I experienced it with _Ultima 5 Lazarus_, a perfect remake of Ultima 5 with the Dungeon Siege engine. It is made as a mod (a 600 MB mod) for Dungeon Siege, and you can get "mods for the mod" that modify everything, from camera angles to weapon effects to NPC behaviour. It's free since the creators are not allowed to make any money from the mod, and it has provided me with roughly 100 hours of roleplaying fun.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 28, 2007)

I'd say it's a matter of degree, the worst pen-and-paper RPGs I've been in have been more limiting than many CRPGs I've played.  CRPGs are really just like railroad campaigns with limited tracks and a myopic rules as written, by the book, "if the book doesn't explicitly say fighters can climb, they can't" DM.  The difference with CRPGs is that you don't get the asnine DM aspect and you often get at least 2 or more railroad tracks to follow instead of one.
The best CRPGs I've played make you forget that your choices and environment interaction options are limited.  They get you to buy into what you can do and put it into use in ingenious ways, mostly tactical combat ways, but still hack-n-slash is a time honored RPG play mode.  And the very best CRPG may not have all my roleplaying options in mind but certainly sophisticated enough conversation trees to make it fun and give some choice, better than some human DMs.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 28, 2007)

I thought I posted this, but, I must have been sleeping.

Dork Tower has the best answer to this EVAR.

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1246


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 28, 2007)

> Generally speaking, RPGs in the video game world are usually marked by the ability to level up. This is one reason Ninja Gaiden isn't one. While in Ninja Gaiden you gain new abilities and there is a story, there are no "levels" to gain. The same is true of God of War which isn't considered an RPG because, while your equipment and spells level, the character doesn't. This is why Oblivion is an RPG instead of a FPS. This doesn't always apply, but its a good guideline to follow.




And it's interesting to note that even those are considered to be blurring the line because of the ability to advance your character. Even Metroid, with various power-ups that allow you to explore new areas, is sometimes said to have "RPG elements" (though more commonly they are called "adventure games"). 



> BINGO! YOU'VE GOT IT! That's the gateway that creates an actual role-playing game. In a role-playing game, the RAW are just tools and guidelines for arbitrating player activity; the game master, a live human being, is required to be there interacting with the other players. No set of rules or video game engine can capture the infinite variety of actions, situations, circumstances, and so on that human imagination and social interaction can create.




A CRPG's team of creators takes on that role in determining how the game reacts to the actions of the players. And plenty of video games encompass whatever actions the players really *want* to do with less strictures than some Pen and Paper games.

Or would you really call a campaign where, say, gnomes weren't allowed as a player race, at all encompassing any sort of infinite variety?

A CRPG is limited by it's programming. A TRPG is limited by it's DM. 

They are different, but not to such a degree that it matters enough to call one "TRUE" and the other "FALSE" unless you want to be unnecessarily pedantic and elitist about it.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jul 29, 2007)

Lets see if a cprg fits the name sake of a rpg.

Is a Crpg a *Game* in which you *Play* a *Role* ? 

Check, Check and check.

We have a winner.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

If the inability to advance your character makes something _not_ a role-playing game, then the original Traveller wasn't an RPG....something I would dispute.  



			
				DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Is a Crpg a Game in which you Play a Role ?




No.

A CRPG is a Game in which you discover what role the programmer(s) have designed, and then follow that design.  You play a simulation of a role.

RC


----------



## RFisher (Jul 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You can do that in Fable.




I find a c. 1996 Fable and a c. 2004 Fable. (Which don't seem to be related.) Do I assume correctly that you are referencing the latter?



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, RPGs in the video game world are usually marked by the ability to level up.




Interesting. By that definition there are TRPGs that wouldn't count. Indeed, some of the most interesting one to me these days are those in which the rewards are other than increases to character stats.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Mostly what I don't understand is why you want to use a definition that is different than the generally accepted definition. How many people have to use a term differently than its initial creation before the word's definition changes? How long? That's why it seems a bit elitist, not because you're excluding computer games, but because people at large consider computer games to fall into the roleplaying game category.




Prescriptivism may indeed be a form of elitism, but it is far from new in the world of definitions. (^_^) Yet, I am unsure that the "generally accepted" definition is what you think it is.

I am wondering if the OED has anything on this. (Not because I feel it is an absolute authority on such issues. As I said, I'm much more interested in the differences between the games than in the differences in definitions. Simply because every discussion of definitions makes me wonder what the OED says.)



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm not experienced with wargames, but I assume the main point is not to control a character or characters, but to play through a single scenario. Note that above I did say that if you start calling your character "Bob" you're now playing a roleplaying game.




For me, the key can be traced back (if what I've read can be believed) to Free Kriegspiel. A wargame in which the umpire was given free reign to decide the outcome of the actions of the players rather than having to consult a complex system of rules.

This inspired a game called Strategos.

This inspired Dave Wesely to create his Braunstein games.

This inspired Dave Arneson to create his Blackmoor campaign and his notebook.

This inspired Gary Gygax to create his Greyhawk campaign and Dungeons & Dragons.

This inspried (directly or indirectly) nigh every game that has been called an RPG, whether we agree that all of them are "true RPGs" or not.

(Although that lineage certainly leaves out some important influences, but it's the lineage that--for me--is key.)

And--truth be told--I think someone like Law Shick--who actually investigated the history of the hobby--would be a better authority to provide a definition--if you're looking for an authority--than Gygax. No disrepect for Gary intended.

And let us also keep in mind that Gary--as came out in his Q&A thread not so long ago--neither coined "role-playing game" nor knows who did. Not that I think that invalidates anyone's choice to back his definition--just that I need to nitpick. (^_^)



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Would you or would you not say that there are more people who play video games than play tabletop roleplaying games?




Immaterial to the discussion of definition. Just because someone plays video games doesn't mean that they agree that CRPGs are "true RPGs".



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> EDIT: That's what separates "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians" from being roleplaying games after all.




Those _are_ RPGs. At least according to Rob Kuntz.

I tend to think a rule to resolve disputes is necessary, but it can be as simple as "the GM makes the final decision" or "anyone at the table can veto anything" or "don't contradict what someone else has already said".

(Hmm. Would I consider improvisational theatre a "true RPG"?)

In fact, that pretty much sums up what my working definition of "RPG" has been recently: Let's pretend with a rule to resolve disputes.

Though Kuntz will cite "GM rulings" by impartial adults from when he played "Cops & Robbers" as a kid.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> DungeonMaester said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes! 



			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> Interesting. By that definition there are TRPGs that wouldn't count. Indeed, some of the most interesting one to me these days are those in which the rewards are other than increases to character stats.




Yep. Back in the day there were people who defined RPGs also by their turn based combat. It was used to help distinguish The Legend of Zelda from an RPG. That's quite outdated by now, however.



> Prescriptivism may indeed be a form of elitism, but it is far from new in the world of definitions. (^_^) Yet, I am unsure that the "generally accepted" definition is what you think it is.




I've never heard anyone argue in gaming circles that Final Fantasy is not an RPG. Everyone I have ever talked about Final Fantasy with considers it an RPG. If you go into a Gamestop (or other local gaming store) and ask to see some Roleplaying Games, everyone will know what you're talking about, will not correct you, and you'll often find someone who you can discuss the latest RPG with.

This will be repeated just about anywhere: a college campus, an arcade, a con, a message board, whatever. Go to ENWorld's own Software section and ask about the latest RPGs in video games. I bet you nobody will tell you a CRPG isn't really an RPG. If you're talking with someone about video games and say "RPG" they will not look at you in confusion. They know _exactly_ what you're talking about. Then call Zelda, God of War, or Assassin's Creed an RPG, and you'll have someone correct you. So, yes, it is ubiquitous.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think more of it along these lines: If people started referring to all fruit as "apples" for whatever reason, how long until calling an orange an apple would be permissable?
> 
> I've never heard anyone argue in gaming circles that Final Fantasy is not an RPG. Everyone I have ever talked about Final Fantasy with considers it an RPG. If you go into a Gamestop (or other local gaming store) and ask to see some Roleplaying Games, everyone will know what you're talking about, will not correct you, and you'll often find someone who you can discuss the latest RPG with.




Grass and tomatoes are both 'plants' just like CRPGS and RPGs are 'Games' or 'Entertainments'.

Tomatoes are a fruit, by nature of it's structure. But they are not sweet like most fruits, and are not made into pies or desserts. Every grocery store I know groups the tomatoes in the produce section with the vegetables. There is even a popular vegetable juice drink that is mostly made from tomatoes. I would be willing to bet that if you asked any ten people in the US to name five vegetables, tomato would be one.

Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables and treat their actual classification as a fruit as an interesting bit of trivia.

This still does not prevent them from being dead wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Yes!





Must....keep....Internet.....from.....imploding........


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jul 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the inability to advance your character makes something _not_ a role-playing game, then the original Traveller wasn't an RPG....something I would dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The added words does not change the fact that it is a game you play a role in. 
Its like saying four quarters may make a dollar but they are not made from paper like a dollar is. 

---Rusty


----------



## Gimby (Jul 30, 2007)

Or to put it another way, does playing a conventional tabletop game with pre-generated characters prevent it from being a roleplaying game?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> The added words does not change the fact that it is a game you play a role in.
> Its like saying four quarters may make a dollar but they are not made from paper like a dollar is.
> 
> ---Rusty





Madden Football is a game in which you play football.  It is useless to say that you are not playing actual football.  The added words does not change the fact that it is a game you play football in.  It's like saying a Monopoly dollar is not a dollar because it is only worth a dollar in Monopoly.

Or to put it another way, does playing a conventional tabletop game with pre-generated characters prevent you from making any reasonable choice within the context of that game?  Or are you only allowed to make the choices that were predetermines "possibles" long before you even started?


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jul 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Madden Football is a game in which you play football.  It is useless to say that you are not playing actual football.  The added words does not change the fact that it is a game you play football in.  It's like saying a Monopoly dollar is not a dollar because it is only worth a dollar in Monopoly.
> 
> Or to put it another way, does playing a conventional tabletop game with pre-generated characters prevent you from making any reasonable choice within the context of that game?  Or are you only allowed to make the choices that were predetermines "possibles" long before you even started?




This logic doesn't work because you care comparing apples and oranges, and i'll tell you why.

You are right on about madden football vrs real football, but that example does not work for rpg vrs crpgs becase they are both games in which you are playing a role in. They both start off giving the players fictous character in a fictous world to play in, so unlike real vrs madden football, they are the same thing, only done in a differnt format. It is like asying Improve is true comedy becyase they made up jokes, and stand up is only a comdey sim because their lines have all ready been written.

---Rusty


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

This logic doesn't work because you are comparing apples and apples, and I'll tell you why.

You are wrong about Madden football vs real football, becase they are both games in which you are playing football.  Therefore, Madden football = playing football.  And Monopoly money = real money.  Simply because Monopoly money is only useful in Monopoly doesn't mean that it isn't being used to buy things.  The limitations on the form have nothing to do with its meaning.


----------



## Gimby (Jul 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or to put it another way, does playing a conventional tabletop game with pre-generated characters prevent you from making any reasonable choice within the context of that game?  Or are you only allowed to make the choices that were predetermines "possibles" long before you even started?




If you are playing with a particularly restrictive/rail-roady/pixelbitching DM (yes, I'm aware thats a computer game term, but it does describe the actions of some DMs well) where there is only one answer to a problem or you are forced to follow a particular story, are you not roleplaying?  

It may not be the *best* RPG, but it is still *an* RPG. There are some CRPGs where you have a meaningful effect on the world (clear the Naskel mines in BG1 and they stay cleared).  There are others where your character can develop in a number of different directions (Nameless one from PS:T being the prime example).  While your options are limited and the outcomes pre-determined this is not really any different from a rail-roaded pre-bought module (Dragonlance, anyone?).   While sandbox play might be the ideal way to play it does not mean that anything less than full freedom means that you are not playing an RPG.

Exersicing your freedom to try anything in a tabletop game can also be distruptive - if you decide that your character wishes to spend all his days fishing then you can expect most DMs to tell you to roll a new character or attempt to get your character involved in whatever they have planned.  If you wish to spend all your days fishing on WoW then you are quite welcome to do so.  All formats have a certain number of limitations. 

As to the playing of American football or John Madden - In one case you are playing football, the other you are simulating it.  Playing a tabletop RPG is (typically) simulating adventuring - a CRPG is not simulating playing an RPG, it is *also* simulating adventuring (unless you are playing something self-referential or The Sims).  A more suitable analogy would be:

Football=Adventuring
Subbuteo=TTRPG
Fifa 200X=CRPG

While clearly CRPGs limit your freedom to act outside a number of limited options, a good CRPG will endeavour to present you with a large number of options - giving at least the illusion of freedom.  Which is sometimes all you get in tabletop games.  In return for that, you can play without needing to gather a large group of people, get the mechanics handled automatically and (often) an excellent story.  It is a trade-off.  To claim that you *cannot* roleplay in a CRPG is I believe a gross simplification.


----------



## Asmo (Jul 30, 2007)

Poll-time,anyone?

Asmo


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

Gimby said:
			
		

> To claim that you *cannot* roleplay in a CRPG is I believe a gross simplification.




Likewise Monopoly.  Especially those variants like Star Wars Monopoly.  I enjoy putting on a "Darth Vader breathing noise" when I land on Endor.    

Just because your options are limited, doesn't make Monopoly _not_ a role-playing game.


----------



## Gimby (Jul 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise Monopoly.  Especially those variants like Star Wars Monopoly.  I enjoy putting on a "Darth Vader breathing noise" when I land on Endor.
> 
> Just because your options are limited, doesn't make Monopoly _not_ a role-playing game.




Uh, bully for you?  So I take it you agree with the bulk of my position?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 30, 2007)

Gimby said:
			
		

> Uh, bully for you?  So I take it you agree with the bulk of my position?



Are you asserting that Monopoly is a role-playing game?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

Gimby said:
			
		

> Uh, bully for you?  So I take it you agree with the bulk of my position?





If your position is that Monopoly is a role-playing game, and that Madden Football is football, then I agree that cRPGs are role-playing games in the same sense that the aforementioned are true.

If not, I hold that a cRPG is simulating playing an RPG in the same way that John Madden is simulating playing football. 

RC


----------



## crazy_cat (Jul 30, 2007)

Gimby said:
			
		

> *snip*
> While clearly CRPGs limit your freedom to act outside a number of limited options, a good CRPG will endeavour to present you with a large number of options - giving at least the illusion of freedom.  Which is sometimes all you get in tabletop games.  In return for that, you can play without needing to gather a large group of people, get the mechanics handled automatically and (often) an excellent story.  It is a trade-off.  To claim that you *cannot* roleplay in a CRPG is I believe a gross simplification.



QFT.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If not, I hold that a cRPG is simulating playing an RPG in the same way that John Madden is simulating playing football.




I think my "not a simulation of a simulation" argument upthread is better than your "is a simulation" argument, but then I'd better! But... does that mean you think CRPGs have more in common with Munchkin than they do with P&P RPGs? This isn't a trick question with some kind of "aha" follow up. I just wonder.

EDIT: Changed question. Somehow I asked a completely different question than I meant to!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think my "not a simulation of a simulation" argument upthread is better than your "is a simulation" argument, but then I'd better!




Of course.....We must work hard to prevent the explosion/implosion of the Interweb!     



> But... does that mean you think CRPGs have more in common with Munchkin than they do with P&P RPGs? This isn't a trick question with some kind of "aha" follow up. I just wonder.




When I was a kid, we made "footballs" out of folded paper and flicked them with thumb & finger to score field goals.  This is a simulation of football, but a very different kind of simulation than Madden.

The Munchkin simulation of RPGs is intended to be a fun simulation, where the fun is based on knowing that you are simulating the form.

The cRPG simulation is intended to be a fun simulation, where the fun (and sales) are based on convincing you that it is more than a simulation.  Some do this better than others.

Different types of simulations, but still simulations.  IMHO.  YDMB.


----------



## hexgrid (Jul 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables and treat their actual classification as a fruit as an interesting bit of trivia.
> 
> This still does not prevent them from being dead wrong.




They aren't wrong. You're insisting on one specific definition of the word vegetable, which in this case doesn't accurately describe how the word is used.

Try this definition, for example:



			
				Princeton WordNet Search said:
			
		

> vegetable, veggie, veg (edible seeds or roots or stems or leaves or bulbs or tubers or nonsweet fruits of any of numerous herbaceous plant)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When I was a kid, we made "footballs" out of folded paper and flicked them with thumb & finger to score field goals.  This is a simulation of football, but a very different kind of simulation than Madden.




I've done that at work. Hit a girl over a cubicle once. It was kinda like being a kid.


----------



## Gimby (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If your position is that Monopoly is a role-playing game, and that Madden Football is football, then I agree that cRPGs are role-playing games in the same sense that the aforementioned are true.
> 
> If not, I hold that a cRPG is simulating playing an RPG in the same way that John Madden is simulating playing football.
> 
> RC




So, that would be the opposite of what I actually said, right?

Lets try this again.   

Assume I'm playing, for example, Baldurs Gate. As I play, I make choices, explore areas, kill things and take thier stuff.  I do this through the medium of a simulation, in this case generated and maintained by the computer.

I then go away and play D&D with my friends.  As I play, I make choices, explore areas, kill things and take thier stuff.  I do this through the medium of a simulation, in this case generated and maintained by the DM.

In both cases, I am simulating being an adventurer.  In neither case am I actually being an adventurer (no, not even when I LARP).

If I play a CRPG I am not simulating the experience of actually playing a table top RPG.  There is no arguing over whether a die is cocked.  There is no having to hunt for my character sheet after loosing it (again).  I don't have to actually roll the dice myself.  The screen does not show me sitting around a table laden with books, dice and snacks.

A CRPG is not a simulation of a simulation (unless you are on Second Life or the Sims or something).  

So, taking the risk of repeating myself to clarify in terms of your analogy (using proper football):

Football=Adventuring
Subbuteo=TTRPG
FIFA 200X=CRPG

Clear? Or do I need to go over it again


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

Gimby said:
			
		

> Assume I'm playing, for example, Baldurs Gate. As I play, I make choices, explore areas, kill things and take thier stuff.  I do this through the medium of a simulation, in this case generated and maintained by the computer.
> 
> I then go away and play D&D with my friends.  As I play, I make choices, explore areas, kill things and take thier stuff.  I do this through the medium of a simulation, in this case generated and maintained by the DM.




However, when you say "I make choices" in both games, the terms are not co-equal.

Assume I'm playing, for example, Madden Football. As I play, I make choices, try to score, and hope to win.  I then go away and play football with my friends.  As I play, I make choices, try to score, and hope to win.  Same thing, then, right?



> If I play a CRPG I am not simulating the experience of actually playing a table top RPG.  There is no arguing over whether a die is cocked.  There is no having to hunt for my character sheet after loosing it (again).  I don't have to actually roll the dice myself.  The screen does not show me sitting around a table laden with books, dice and snacks.




If I play Madden Football, I am not simulating the experience of actually playing football.  There is no arguing over whether a call is justified.  There is no smell of sweat.  I don't have to actually throw the football myself.  

Madden Football, therefore, is not a simulation of football.

Clear?  Or do I need to go over it again.

Yours is clear, merely incorrect (IMHO, of course).


RC


----------



## RFisher (Jul 31, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Yep. Back in the day there were people who defined RPGs also by their turn based combat. It was used to help distinguish The Legend of Zelda from an RPG. That's quite outdated by now, however.




The trend away from turn-based combat is, I think, one of the reasons my CRPG playing declined even before my amount of time to devote to gaming declined.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> If you go into a Gamestop (or other local gaming store) and ask to see some Roleplaying Games, everyone will know what you're talking about, will not correct you, and you'll often find someone who you can discuss the latest RPG with.




Yes. Language is about communicating. So if you want to discuss the games called CRPGs, you don't bother taking issue with the term. That doesn't mean that everyone feels the term is appropriate.

A friend of mine who absolutely loved RTS games was the first to admit that they weren't really strategy scale games. He didn't bring this up when discussing the games with other gamers. Only when he was explaining the genre to non-gamers.



			
				Gimby said:
			
		

> If you are playing with a particularly restrictive/rail-roady/pixelbitching DM (yes, I'm aware thats a computer game term, but it does describe the actions of some DMs well) where there is only one answer to a problem or you are forced to follow a particular story, are you not roleplaying?




The fact that there have been immature/inexperienced DMs isn't really the issue. They don't last long. They either stop DMing or grow out of it.

Can we simply drop the definition argument for a moment, & let me ask this: What is the difference between CRPGs & TRPGs that is the reason that you who play both don't abandon TRPGs for CRPGs completely?

(Although, I tend to think that single-player CRPGs & MORPGs (whether massive or not) should probably be treated as different categories for such a comparison.)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 31, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Grass and tomatoes are both 'plants' just like CRPGS and RPGs are 'Games' or 'Entertainments'.
> 
> Tomatoes are a fruit, by nature of it's structure. But they are not sweet like most fruits, and are not made into pies or desserts. Every grocery store I know groups the tomatoes in the produce section with the vegetables. There is even a popular vegetable juice drink that is mostly made from tomatoes. I would be willing to bet that if you asked any ten people in the US to name five vegetables, tomato would be one.
> 
> ...




/threadjack  When I lived in Korea, they would put those little cherry tomatoes on a parfait at the restaurant because tomatoes are fruit.  

/threadjack.  



			
				Rfisher said:
			
		

> Can we simply drop the definition argument for a moment, & let me ask this: What is the difference between CRPGs & TRPGs that is the reason that you who play both don't abandon TRPGs for CRPGs completely?




There is a false assumption in this question.  It assumes that for CRPG'S to qualify as RPG's, they must be exactly the same as TRPG's.  No one is claiming that they are not different experiences.  The claim is that they are both role playing experiences.  In both set ups, you are playing a role of a fictional character in a fictional setting determined beforehand by someone with some form of story to be experienced.  ((The story might be just walk into each cave and kill everything in sight, but, it's still a story))

Are they different experiences?  Of course.  That's not the question.  However, to claim that there is only one form of role playing and that is Tabletop Role Playing, is false.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In both set ups, you are playing a role of a fictional character in a fictional setting determined beforehand by someone with some form of story to be experienced.




Not exactly.

In a role-playing game, the setting and character are mutable based on the needs of the game.  What lies "over that hill" might not be determined beforehand, but you may still go that way and find something (because the DM can "wing it").  Similarly, who your character is (and more important, what he can attempt/how his role is defined) is only partially determined beforehand.  You conflate stats with character here.  Your character is made based upon how those stats are used, and what actions that character takes, for good or ill.  In a computer game, many of these decisions (essential for actually playing a role) are taken away from you.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not exactly.
> 
> In a role-playing game, the setting and character are mutable based on the needs of the game.  What lies "over that hill" might not be determined beforehand, but you may still go that way and find something (because the DM can "wing it").  Similarly, who your character is (and more important, what he can attempt/how his role is defined) is only partially determined beforehand.  You conflate stats with character here.  Your character is made based upon how those stats are used, and what actions that character takes, for good or ill.  In a computer game, many of these decisions (essential for actually playing a role) are taken away from you.
> 
> ...




And, thus, the experience is different.  I get that.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  However, it's disingenuous to expect both experiences to be exactly the same.  It's also strange to claim that the sole definition of role play is based on tabletop gaming, when people claim to play roles in other types of games.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In a role-playing game, the setting and character are mutable based on the needs of the game.




I don't believe that's necessarily true.  There's stories all over the place about railroading GMs - they have a fixed scenario outside of which the players cannot step, predetermined solutions to challenges the players must use.  Are these guys running an RPG?  

You seem to be running really, really close to saying that a group of people sitting down with D&D rulebooks and a published module that like to run the combat rules strictly as written won't be playing a role playing game.  And that's going to be pretty darned absurd.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, thus, the experience is different.  I get that.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  However, it's disingenuous to expect both experiences to be exactly the same.  It's also strange to claim that the sole definition of role play is based on tabletop gaming, when people claim to play roles in other types of games.




I don't expect both to be the same.  Playing Traveller (original) is a very different experience than playing D&D.  I would say playing 3.X is a different experience than playing 1e.  Nonetheless, these are all role-playing games.

Differences that arise from details are not the same as differences of kind.  it's disingenuous to claim that differences in kind don't lead to real differences in what the games are.

It is a fact that computer "role-playing games" arose directly as an attempt to simulate the experience of playing tabletop role-playing games.  In fact, many of the early ads for those games were quite upfront about this.  I have seen nothing whatsoever that remotely suggests that computer games are not simulations of playing RPGs to this day.

Certainly, I will grant that there are computer programs that can aid the DM as a form of communication, and some computer "games" might at times fill this niche....insofar as the technical proficiency of the DM allows the "game" to be a help and not a hinderance to actual play.

I will also grant that some people today use the term "RPG" to mean something very different than its original meaning.

I will even grant that, some day, a computer game might pass a Turing test, so that there really is computer role-playing game.  

However, those things granted, there is no c"RPG" today, in the sense that "RPG" was originally used (i.e., assuming that you do not artificially extend the meaning of "RPG" to include computer games, as the computer game industry has, apparently, successfully done).  This is not a knock against computer gaming; some of the computer games I have played have been quite fun.

It is a recognition that the difference is a difference in kind.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You seem to be running really, really close to saying that a group of people sitting down with D&D rulebooks and a published module that like to run the combat rules strictly as written won't be playing a role playing game.  And that's going to be pretty darned absurd.




That's an oft-used strawman.

Unless, of course, you suggest that a group of people sitting down with D&D rulebooks and a published module that like to run the combat rules strictly as written are unable to adapt to unforseen ideas and plans during the course of the game.  If so, you have a very limited view of people, and your position is going to be pretty darn absurd.

If, conversely, that group sits down and allows no option for action outside the RAW, allows no non-preordained dialogue to affect the action, and allows no solution to problems that was not already written into the module....in other words, if the DM runs the game as a computer game.....then you are right.  I would say it ceases to be a role-playing game.  Of course, that's a pretty darn absurd scenario, too.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 31, 2007)

> It is a fact that computer "role-playing games" arose directly as an attempt to simulate the experience of playing tabletop role-playing games. In fact, many of the early ads for those games were quite upfront about this. I have seen nothing whatsoever that remotely suggests that computer games are not simulations of playing RPGs to this day.




This is ... wrong.  Sorry, a CRPG does not simulate the experience of an RPG and never really has.  It simulates the same thing that an TRPG simulates - living and acting within some form of adventure.

Unless your CRPG'S include arguing with your DM and Cheetos, it's certainly not simulating playing an RPG.

In your football example, Madden Football is simulating playing football.  Shooting a paper ball with your finger is also simulating playing football.  Thus, they are both simulations.  One is cruder than the other, but, they are still simulations.  Yet neither one is simulating the other.

Just as CRPG's are not simulating playing TRPG's.  Both CRPG's and TRPG's are simulating the same thing.  They are doing it in different ways, and certainly the CRPG is far more crude in terms of player freedoms, but, a CRPG in no way is simulating playing a TRPG.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Unless your CRPG'S include arguing with your DM and Cheetos, it's certainly not simulating playing an RPG.




Are you saying that I must argue with the DM and eat Cheetos to play a role-playing game?

If not, why must I do so to simulate playing a role-playing game?

Or, to use Madden Football, if we accept that Madden football is a simulation of football, and we accept that MF doesn't include everything that comprises an actual game of football, we must also accept that the argument that "Z is not a simulation of X, because Z doesn't contain some components of X" is wrong.  

So, either Madden Football is football, or your argument doesn't hold.  I personally believe the latter, but if you accept the former, I'll concede that following the same logic your conclusion is correct.


RC


----------



## takyris (Jul 31, 2007)

I can put on my game designer hat and try to answer some of this. Bear in mind that my game designer hat is new and relatively small.

Offhand, there's one game that I can easily think of that tried to actually simulate a tabletop game, and that's Neverwinter Nights. In NWN, a team of players running with a live DM could easily deviate from the DM's planned adventure. About the only thing you can't do on the fly is make new maps, but a DM who makes a "placeholder map" and jumps the players there and tells them to "imagine the setting" can still plunk down orcs, treasure chests, and whatever else needs to be plunked down. Players who want to deviate from a dialogue tree can ask the DM to play a creature live, and the DM can do it.

It won't be as polished as the adventure that the DM had planned, of course, but that's not all that different from a tabletop game in which the players opt to go someplace completely different -- the monsters tend to be right out of the book instead of crafted specially, the NPCs don't have as much interesting dialogue, and everything takes a bit more time because the DM is coming up with it all on the fly.

As for other games, they give you a character to play with a varying degree of story and freedom... just like a tabletop game.

- In the current tabletop game I'm playing, I was informed that I had to be human, that only one person in the party could be a magic-user, and that our backgrounds were to a large degree determined for us -- we got to choose from options presented to us.

- In a game I played in a few years ago, the DM, running a module, railroaded the players mercilessly through the module, even to the point of saying, "See this? (raised hand) This is the hand of plot. The hand of plot says that you can't get inside this building until you go clear that other building."

I suspect that some people will now try to cast aspersions on CRPGs by saying, "That frustration you experienced was because those DMs DM'd as though they were the computer in a CRPG." No. They DM'd like DMs. That's my point.

A tabletop RPG has, in theory, more freedom than a CRPG. A tabletop RPG also has more potential areas for things to go off the tracks -- the computer that people attack for its inflexibility never forgets how Bull Rush works or gets into an hour-long argument about whether walking along the very narrow ledge is a Balance check or a Climb check.

But in practice, as in most things, CRPGs aren't as far from tabletop RPGs as most people would think. They aren't identical -- it's almost always easier to have a fight against 20 unique bad guys in a CRPG than in a tabletop game, and it's almost always easier to roleplay a cocktail party in a tabletop game than in a CRPG -- but they are very very similar. In both cases, the person running or designing the game makes some choices that balance exploration freedom versus the story that the designer wants to tell. In a CRPG like Oblivion, the designers wanted the player to have the freedom to create his or her own story. In a CRPG like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, the player has a lot less freedom, but the story is a lot more focused (and much stronger) than in Oblivion. Games like Baldur's Gate 2 strike a middle ground by giving the player a long-term goal (story) but a lot of freedom about how to get there (exploration).

In the tabletop games I played in, the DMs made choices -- the first DM wanted a low-magic, human-centric game, which is why we all started out as peasant kids. The second DM wanted to run a game right out of the module without doing any work of his own. In theory, the DMs could have decided to change what was over the hill because of what the party wanted, but in practice, it didn't happen. People generally make choices and stick with them.

The difference is that in a CRPG, the choices all have to be made beforehand -- how much dialogue to give a given character, whether to make someone romanceable, how many options to give the players. You play the odds -- most players will take this obvious path, some will take the less obvious path, and one or two would think to try something crazy. You design the obvious and less obvious paths, and you look at the crazy path and figure out whether you've got the additional resources to make it happen. A lot of times, you don't, and that's life -- just like a DM deciding on the fly that he's not letting the players get into the warehouse unless they talk to the guard, because he doesn't want to have to come up with some other way for the players to learn the information that the guard gives them.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's an oft-used strawman.




And accusations of "strawman" are an oft-used technique for being dismissive.  I suggest you not use that technique with me  

In this case, it isn't a strawman - it's _reductio ad absurdum_, which has solid uses...

You see, RC, if the argument is often used, perhaps you should stop dismissing it out of hand.  Rather than assume that we're all nasty little liars out to win a point, consider the possibility that we're using it because it is very close to some of our experiences - that what I'm suggesting isn't nearly as absurd as you contend - indicating that your definition doesn't fit common enough real-world situations.  

Maybe you never went through the phase, but I'll bet for a lot of folks here many older TSR modules were rather like this - there was often enough no dialog to be had except with other PCs (the module being composed of monsters and traps).  The monsters are beaten by combat, and the traps through methods strictly defined in the text.  The thing can be played as a tactical wargame...

And that's not surprising.  RPGs branched off of wargaming roots.  Somewhere, there's a dividing line between them.  But I suggest the dividing line is broad and vague, and has far more to do with what is going on inside a player's head than with exactly how much adaptive flex the environment theoretically has.

Adaptive environment is usually a wonderful aid to roleplaying.  However, I think you mistake "wonderful aid" for "necessary condition".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> The difference is that in a CRPG, the choices all have to be made beforehand -- how much dialogue to give a given character, whether to make someone romanceable, how many options to give the players.




Exactly so.  The choices all have to be made beforehand, by the designer of the game.

Again, certainly, I will grant that there are computer programs that can aid the DM as a form of communication, and some computer "games" might at times fill this niche....insofar as the technical proficiency of the DM allows the "game" to be a help and not a hinderance to actual play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> And accusations of "strawman" are an oft-used technique for being dismissive.  I suggest you not use that technique with me




Is that mod talking, or person who disagrees talking?  Because I assume the second, and will respond accordingly.  



> In this case, it isn't a strawman - it's _reductio ad absurdum_, which has solid uses...




I disagree.

Not only is it a strawman, but rather than simply dismiss your argument, as you claim, I pointed out why it was a strawman through _reductio ad absurdum_.  Also, as I am sure you know, because an argument is often used, that is no evidence that it is a good argument, or that it should not be dismissed out of hand, especially once it has been often answered.

I would be curious to know how you draw the conclusion that I "assume that we're all nasty little liars out to win a point" though.  How does my statement that your point doesn't convince turn you into a "nasty little liar"?  This is the "wrongbadfun" gambit using different terminology, and again isn't a valid argument.  

Because I disagree with your conclusions, it doesn't mean that I think you are lying about the experiences from which you draw those conclusions.  Merely that I think that the conclusions you have drawn from those experiences are, in this case, wrong.  I have certainly drawn enough wrong conclusions from actual events to be able to state, without feat of begin wrong, that such a thing is possible.  

Nor is the "my experience is that we played rpgs more like wargames" a valid argument about either the possibility of what you could do, or even (to be fair) the comparitive possibilities of your earlier rpg experiences vs. computer games.....unless, as said before, you suggest that a group of people sitting down with D&D rulebooks and a published module that like to run the combat rules strictly as written are unable to adapt to unforseen ideas and plans during the course of the game.   Or, conversely, that group sits down and allows no option for action outside the RAW, allows no non-preordained dialogue to affect the action, and allows no solution to problems that was not already written into the module....in other words, if the DM runs the game as a computer game.

If that is what you are saying, please say so clearly.

Finally, the reason I have repeatedly brought up Madden Football vs. real football, and Monopoly as a role-playing game is because I believe that the best chance to successfully convey my view (if not convince the reader) is to cause that reader to first determine what limitations to the term "RPG" exist for him, and then compare and contrast them to the topic at hand.  

Where a given compare & contrast contains a statement that seems to me equivilent to "In the case of Madden Football, it is not football because X =/= Y, but in the case of computer games, they are RPGs although X =/= Y" I am bound to point out the inconsistency in that position.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 31, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't believe that's necessarily true.  There's stories all over the place about railroading GMs - they have a fixed scenario outside of which the players cannot step, predetermined solutions to challenges the players must use.  Are these guys running an RPG?




More and more, I'm coming to think that the answer to this is 'No'. They're playing a somewhat more complex boardgame. 

I also strongly suspect that many games of D&D are run this way, and badly, because there's no-one to teach or show these people any differently. Eventually the players, bored because their actions have no real effect on the game, leave. Again, I strongly suspect that this is the reason we see so many D&D players adbicate the game totally in favor of CRPGs because their gameplay experience is not really any different, and it's more convenient. Very, very sad.


----------



## takyris (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Exactly so.  The choices all have to be made beforehand, by the designer of the game.




That said, I don't believe that "degree of choice available to the player" is what determines whether something is an RPG or not, since I've played NWN modules that offered me more open freedom than some tabletop games I've played in.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

See WayneLigon's post, directly above yours.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 31, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Yes. Language is about communicating. So if you want to discuss the games called CRPGs, you don't bother taking issue with the term. That doesn't mean that everyone feels the term is appropriate.




You'll note that I said two things:

1) People will not disagree if you call Final Fantasy an RPG.
2) Peoplw _will_ disagree if you call God of War an RPG.

That should tell you something about what terms are acceptable. People aren't facilitating communication through non-confrentation. They're accepting definitions.

And, StarCraft _is_ an RTS, no matter how little strategy your friend thinks it involves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 31, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> People will not disagree if you call Final Fantasy an RPG.




Here's a poll to see how EN Worlders use the term:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=202761  I tried to not write a skewed poll, but the last choice might skew it a bit, because I think some people (myself included) use the term cRPG without believing that cRPGs are RPGs.  Now I get to see if I'm all alone in thinking so.


RC

EDIT:  While we have no conclusive data yet, I would say that the acceptance of cRPGs as RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.


----------



## takyris (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> See WayneLigon's post, directly above yours.




In which case you and Wayne are using "RPG played he way I like it" as the definition of an RPG. I agree to disagree.

Disguise it as you will, your attempt to control the definition implicitly and inherently places a value judgment upon the term, and as someone who spends his day trying to make games that offer complex and interesting choices in a world that reacts to those choices, I'm insulted that I'm apparently not doing enough to make a real RPG by your standards.


----------



## Slife (Jul 31, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Grass and tomatoes are both 'plants' just like CRPGS and RPGs are 'Games' or 'Entertainments'.
> 
> Tomatoes are a fruit, by nature of it's structure. But they are not sweet like most fruits, and are not made into pies or desserts. Every grocery store I know groups the tomatoes in the produce section with the vegetables. There is even a popular vegetable juice drink that is mostly made from tomatoes. I would be willing to bet that if you asked any ten people in the US to name five vegetables, tomato would be one.
> 
> ...



This is more an artifact of scientific definitions being different from the ones in common usage than of people being incorrect.

Is a whale a fish?  It used to be, but the scientific definition of fish changed it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  While we have no conclusive data yet, I would say that the acceptance of cRPGs as RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.




Now go make the same poll on gamefaqs.com or some other video game forum. 

Or at least on a forum not mostly populated by D&D grognards. 

Unless, of course, you think this is a statistically accurate poll. 

EDIT: Speaking of which, check out this page on gamefaqs.com. 

Or perhaps gamespot's Top Rated Role-Playing games. 

And I'm sure 1up.com's visitors are really thinking that they aren't looking for RPGs, but "real" RPG simulations.


----------



## Slife (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not exactly.
> 
> In a role-playing game, the setting and character are mutable based on the needs of the game.  What lies "over that hill" might not be determined beforehand, but you may still go that way and find something (because the DM can "wing it").  Similarly, who your character is (and more important, what he can attempt/how his role is defined) is only partially determined beforehand.  You conflate stats with character here.  Your character is made based upon how those stats are used, and what actions that character takes, for good or ill.  In a computer game, many of these decisions (essential for actually playing a role) are taken away from you.
> 
> ...



I don't see why nethack isn't a role-playing game by this definition.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In a computer game, many of these decisions (essential for actually playing a role) are taken away from you.




Except, according to Gary Gygax himself and others on your side of the debate, such playing of a role - which I believe they would term _role-assumption_ - is not a necessary requirement in order to be a roleplaying game, in that you can have role-assumption and not be "playing an RPG," and that you could be "playing an RPG" and not have any role-assumption.

No matter how friggin' ridiculous that sounds.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 31, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  While we have no conclusive data yet, I would say that the acceptance of cRPGs as RPGs is not nearly as widespread as you think.




Looking at it now, it's basically a 50-50 split down the middle.

Which would indicate that condemnation of CRPGs as being incapable of being RPGs is not nearly as widespread as _you_ think.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> Disguise it as you will, your attempt to control the definition implicitly and inherently places a value judgment upon the term, and as someone who spends his day trying to make games that offer complex and interesting choices in a world that reacts to those choices, I'm insulted that I'm apparently not doing enough to make a real RPG by your standards.





Really?  I think not.  This is the wrongbadfun argument.

We are both making a distinction based upon whether or not the player(s) of the game can make role-playing choices extemporaneously AFAIK.

Is Monopoly a role-playing game?  If not why not? 

Is Madden Football real football?  If not why not?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> I don't see why nethack isn't a role-playing game by this definition.




Again, certainly, I will grant that there are computer programs that can aid the DM as a form of communication, and some computer "games" might at times fill this niche....insofar as the technical proficiency of the DM allows the "game" to be a help and not a hinderance to actual play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Looking at it now, it's basically a 50-50 split down the middle.
> 
> Which would indicate that condemnation of CRPGs as being incapable of being RPGs is not nearly as widespread as _you_ think.




Really?

Where did I suggest that condemnation of CRPGs was widespread?  I believe that I said exactly the opposite, that a secondary definition was apparently successfully created to sell computer games as RPGs, and because the computer game designers were emulating RPGs.

RC


----------



## Slife (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, certainly, I will grant that there are computer programs that can aid the DM as a form of communication, and some computer "games" might at times fill this niche....insofar as the technical proficiency of the DM allows the "game" to be a help and not a hinderance to actual play.



Nethack is mostly single player.  There's no DM involved, except for an extremely talented dev team.  (which puts up a new version every now and then, taking into account player input.  Of course, the game is open source, so anyone can mod it if they like. )

All the contingencies and special cases programmed in, however, create an illusion of there being a GM.  

As an example (and something that would probably come up in a game of DnD), the nethack version of the cockatrice is a relatively small chicken-like creature that petrifies by touch.  It is entirely possible to kill one with ranged attacks or spells, or by wearing armor that covers the entire body.  After killing it, you can pick up the corpse and use it as a weapon, turning enemies into stone (as long as you're wearing gloves, at least.  If you aren't, too bad for you.)  If you fall down a pit, or stairs, though, you can die from having it land on you.

The game also keeps track of entirely optional codes of conduct, but doesn't force you to keep to them.  Want to be a vegetarian pacifist?  It's possible, but extremely difficult.


----------



## takyris (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Really?  I think not.  This is the wrongbadfun argument.




And you are the one making it. I think *so*. Wayne stated, and you pointed me at his post by way of agreement, that someone running a module in a manner that he disapproves of is actually not playing an RPG at all. On an RPG forum, that's an attack. A passive-aggressive one that can be disguised with handwaving and "I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion" excuses, but an attack nonetheless.

Ultimately, though, whatever you want to call the video games everyone else is calling CRPGs is up to you. The rest of the world appears to be moving on.



> We are both making a distinction based upon whether or not the player(s) of the game can make role-playing choices extemporaneously AFAIK.




AFAYK would be incorrect. My definition of an RPG is any game that contains a given number of the following:

Character customization (choosing race/background, choosing classes and skills)
Character progression (character gets new abilities and/or improves old ones)
Inventory system (you get to choose what you use, with different effects and tradeoffs for different items)
Resource management (your abilities or items are limited in numbers or uses -- you can run out of spells or arrows)
Tactical combat (the game rewards or requires strategic thinking along the "what spell/weapon/ability to use when" lines)
Free exploration (the game has more than one path -- there are areas where you can wander and hit content in whatever order you like)
Story immersion (the game has a good, solid story that provides a good reason for all the stuff you're fighting and when)
Story influence (the game responds to choices you make by giving different content, so different playthroughs yield a different story)

I don't know what the magic number there is -- 3? 4? 5? -- but I do know that taking just one or two elements and declaring them the sole defining point(s) of whether something is an RPG is an attempt to declare one's personal preferences reality. I might not like Oblivion, but I can accept it as an RPG.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> And you are the one making it.




No.  Stating that X is not Y is not a statement related to the value of either X or Y.  The "wrongbadfun argument" is when a poster says "If you say Z, you are claiming my game to be wrongbadfun" whether true of not as a means of godwinning an argument.



> Ultimately, though, whatever you want to call the video games everyone else is calling CRPGs is up to you. The rest of the world appears to be moving on.




Apparently not "everyone else" or "the rest of the world".  



> AFAYK would be incorrect.




Ahem.  That response was in relation to your statement about my motives and WayneLigon's motives, and the "we" in that statement are WayneLigon and I.  Of course, you might be correct that I am incorrect.........It would hardly be the first time.    Still, I'd rather let WayneLigon tell me if I am misreading his intention or not.  

I rather agree with this gentleman from the poll thread, who put it much better than I:



			
				davidschwartznz said:
			
		

> The way I see it: An abstract game exists within its rules. A roleplaying game exists outside its rules.
> 
> For example, many boardgames have a story, but it is subservient to the rules. I can't take over Catan by force, I can't rezone Baltic Avenue into an industrial zone, my queen can rule in the place of my captured king.
> 
> ...




RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 1, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> ...that someone running a module in a manner that he disapproves of is actually not playing an RPG at all. On an RPG forum, that's an attack. A passive-aggressive one that can be disguised with handwaving and "I'm just trying to have an intelligent discussion" excuses, but an attack nonetheless.




I think you might be misconstruing what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to be passive aggressive, I'm trying to be both neutral and polite. I might well have wandered into that territory by accident, though. Also, sorry if you think it's an attack - if I were in the mood for attacks, I'd simply ask you to start a thread at Circvs Maximvs and be done with it.

But you'd be correct; if you're not getting into your character and doing some degree of role assumption or immersion or whatever you want to call it; if you're not empathizing with the guy you've created and done at least a little work to bring him to life like one would a character in a novel you were writing, then no, you're not role-playing. At best, you're playing a somewhat more complex-than-normal boardgame. You're gaming, not role-playing.

If you want to consider that an attack upon you and your livelihood, then feel free to do so.

Is it _bad _ to do that? Not really, he said in an offhanded manner. I've done it when I was just in the mood to game with friends and not take on the added work that really getting into character and setting a mood and all the rest. It's not _bad_, but it's also not as good as doing the work of role-playing, either. I don't condemn people that enjoy playing like that on a regular basis, but I will say they could do better. I don't dislike them: I kinda pity them. 

From what I've seen over the years, it's very, very likely they just haven't been exposed to good GMing, or been in a game where the players worked at it. Much like a person that has never been exposed to real food made by a real chef, but only eaten stuff from fast food and chain restaurants, they don't know what they're missing.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> [list of things]
> I don't know what the magic number there is -- 3? 4? 5? -- but I do know that taking just one or two elements and declaring them the sole defining point(s) of whether something is an RPG is an attempt to declare one's personal preferences reality. I might not like Oblivion, but I can accept it as an RPG.




Actually, most of those have nothing to do with role-playing; they have a lot to do with the richness of the game _as a game_ and are very important; they can take a humdrum shoot-em-up and instill a great deal of enjoyment in it. When I was playing it, I got a disturbing amount of enjoyment out of resource management in WoW  These points are commonly used to point to it being a 'RPG' when discussing computer games, but 

.. this is the crux of my arguement ... 

_the computer gaming industry misses the point and uses the term RPG incorrectly_. 

If you're missing the critical and definative ability to construct a personality and then act upon and as that personality, then you have not created a roleplaying game. 

Railroading is only a part of the problem:

One can _attempt _ roleplaying in a CRPG but you quickly run up against the limitations of the medium, even in one where you can talk 'in character' to other PC's controlled by real people. 

If I'm playing a rogue and I'm given a mission to kill the young prince, like as not I have no choice but to kill the young prince to go further into the game. What if the personality of the thief I'm playing wouldn't kill a child no matter what? Well, I'm kinda screwed then. Even in a well-written game that has multiple pathways through it, there's very likely not going to be a pathway that would match what my PC would do. Sooner than later, I'm _going _ to hit a choice that my PC in a tabletop game would refuse to do. In that case, I have to either (1) just abandon trying to roleplay at all, or (2) modify my vision. 

There is nothing at all wrong with modifying your vision! We have to do it all the time in any RPG, or otherwise you're a stick-in-the-ass prima dona stereotype Method actor. But... _Enough _ modifications build up and we're right back to (1) again.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 1, 2007)

How about a programmer playing a crpg he's written himself. When he wants to do something new he changes the code, adding the ability to swing on a rope or the necessity to sleep. Is he playing a roleplaying game?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 1, 2007)

One thing I've noticed about the majority of crpgs I've played is that they are very 'D&Dy' - they have levels, classes and hit points, though never Vancian magic. WoW in particular shows its influence with gnolls and owlbears. Even a possible nod to the pig-nosed orcs of earlier editions. Maybe they're D&D but not roleplaying games. After all, as rpgs go, D&D has mostly put the emphasis on game rather than roleplaying.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 1, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If you're missing the critical and definative ability to construct a personality and then act upon and as that personality, then you have not created a roleplaying game.




Care to address Gygax's argument, then?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Stating that X is not Y is not a statement related to the value of either X or Y.



It is if Y is something generally valued. Such as roleplaying games are on a board devoted to them.

It's like saying action movies aren't really films or fantasy books aren't novels. Books and films are things people care about, rightly or wrongly. They're valued. Otoh saying a whale isn't a fish won't have many people leaping to the whale's defence.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 1, 2007)

This whole thread is arguing a moot point. Regardless of whether or not some people think computer or video games are "really RPGs", the term is incredibly pervasive among computer and video game players. One simply can not have a discussion of videogame genres without the term coming up. Even various sub-genres, such as MMORPG or tactical RPG (also called strategy RPG or simulation RPG), have widely used and quite specific names. People use these terms in discussions, they use them in marketing, they are used by videogame news websites and magazines... I mean, 15 years ago, when I was in elementary school, I only knew the term RPG referred to videogames, and didn't know that tabletop RPGs even existed.

The only anyone would even bother trying to make the distinction at this point is if they wanted to position tabletop RPGs as superior to computer RPGs, in some elitist gesture. Trying to undermine an established and well-understood use of the term is inherently going to rub fans of videogames the wrong way.

Regardless, here are some good reasons why videogame RPGs share the term "RPG" with pen and paper games:

1) Historical similarity
Early RPGs were attempting to emulate the genre that D&D fills. Stories of adventure in fantastic lands, with a group of adventurers scouring dungeons and slaying dragons. I don't think it is a coincidence that the main foes of the first Dragon Quest were dragons, or that the "default" party of the first Final Fantasy was a fighter, thief, healer, and wizard, who go on to fight evil elemental monsters and mind-flayers.  Many early computer RPGs were even set in the Forgotten Realms.

Computer RPGs have evolved in many distinct ways unique to the medium since those times, but the roots of the genre are undoubtably found in pen and parer RPGs.

2)Mechanical similarity
Because of the genre emulation I mentioned above, it lead to many mechanical similarities. Just like D&D, computer RPGs have multiple characters with varying stats and party roles. Combat is resolved through comparisons between character and enemy stats, based on tactical choices made by the player. Like different tabletop RPGs, progression is either formless (Romancing Saga or HERO Champions) or built on classes and levels (Final Fantasy 3-6 or D&D). Many videogame RPGs use the ideas of grid movement and ordering actions absed on "initiative" stats, just like D&D.

These mechanical similarities make computer RPGs far more similar to tabletop RPGs than to any other form of game, electronic or otherwise. It is the fact that they resemble D&D that is used to differentiate them from other videogame genres, like first person shooters or racing games.

Simply put, someone who has played many computer RPGs would probably think that D&D is not a very different game, when it comes to gameplay mechanics. I certainly thought it was similar.

Also, when countering this argument, I ask that people keep in mind that gameplay mechanics are the one thing seperating "role-playing games" from being "improvisational acting".

3)Story similarities
Finally, the last main reason is that videogame RPGs tell a story. Especially a decade or so ago (before Metal Gear Solid, at least), RPGs were the only type of videogame where story, character, and character development mattered at all. Many games put story ahead of gameplay, and having an RPG without a developed story was unthinkable. This is probably the most distinct similarity to D&D, which is distinctly built upon telling a story. Even though the methods of telling a story are very different between electronic games and living DMs, the interest in having a story is the same, and for many years was one of the most visible points of similarity between the two.


Overall, I think there are more similarities than differences between videogame RPGs and pen and paper RPGs, at least when compared to any other form of entertainment. I suppose some may argue that it is the "most important thing" that is different (at which point I suppose you will just ignore me), but you can't argue that the name was given to videogame RPGs for arbitrary and senseless reasons.


----------



## RFisher (Aug 1, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> This is more an artifact of scientific definitions being different from the ones in common usage than of people being incorrect.
> 
> Is a whale a fish?  It used to be, but the scientific definition of fish changed it.




In the particular case of fruit, though, I think the scientific meaning (the ripened ovary of a seed plant and its contents) is really closer to the pre-scientific meaning (a product of plant growth) than the modern common usage (a succulent plant part used chiefly in a dessert or sweet course).

Although, a difference with the tomato analogy is that fruits are vegetables, so it's not wrong to call a tomato a vegetable. It's merely wrong to say it isn't a fruit. (With it being very hard for me not to put wrong in scare quotes here.)



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> There is a false assumption in this question.  It assumes that for CRPG'S to qualify as RPG's, they must be exactly the same as TRPG's.




(>_<) No, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's doesn't! I asked _right_ there that we _drop_ the definition argument for that question. I _do not care_ about whether CRPGs qualify as RPGs. (I've made up my own mind about that, and--while I probably could be convinced otherwise--I'm just not interested in that aspect of this discussion.) I've been _trying_ to  focus more on the topic of _what_ the differences are rather than whether the differences make them "true RPGs" or not.

But then, I guess it doesn't help that--like above--I can't stay totally out of the periphery of the definition discussion. (u_u)

So, I give up.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> One thing I've noticed about the majority of crpgs I've played is that they are very 'D&Dy' - they have levels, classes and hit points, though never Vancian magic. WoW in particular shows its influence with gnolls and owlbears. Even a possible nod to the pig-nosed orcs of earlier editions. Maybe they're D&D but not roleplaying games. After all, as rpgs go, D&D has mostly put the emphasis on game rather than roleplaying.




Yes, but we must remember...no matter how much the computer game _simulated D&D_ it isn't _simulating a role-playing game_.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It is if Y is something generally valued. Such as roleplaying games are on a board devoted to them.




Only if X is something not generally valued.  In which case noting the difference is still not a value judgement; that judgement has occurred prior to noting the distinction.

I am told that cheesecake is a pie, not a cake.  I can accept that.  I like both pie and cake.  If I am told that on a board dedicated to pies or cakes, it makes no difference.

It is nothing like saying action movies aren't really films or fantasy books aren't novels, although even in these cases one can debate the definition of "film" or "novel" and them make a determination whether or not the assertation is true.

EDIT:  As a side note, if the board is devoted to rpgs, and crpgs are rpgs (as you assert), and that definition is widely agreed upon (as others assert), then X is not Y on this board could hardly be as dismissive as you claim.....more like saying cheesecake is a pie on a board dedicated to pies _and_ cakes.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The only anyone would even bother trying to make the distinction at this point is if they wanted to position tabletop RPGs as superior to computer RPGs, in some elitist gesture.




Truly?

You leaped into my mind and plucked that out, did you?

You do make a good case about why cRPGs should be thought to simulate RPGs, though.    

RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 1, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Care to address Gygax's argument, then?




As much respect as Mr. Gygax deserves, in that particular statement he's dead wrong.  If I may pretend to read his mind for a moment, I'd think that that particular statment was made in reaction to those who _go too far _ in roleplaying; the stereotype of the Method (and this is in full knowledge that I'm being unfair to the Method school of acting) actor who does nothing unless he's given 'motivation' or the guy that wrecks an adventure because 'I'm just palying my character' are good examples of that.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 1, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> ...the term is incredibly pervasive among computer and video game players.




As I pointed out earlier, just because lots and lots of people call a tomatoe a vegetable, their sheer numbers don't prevent them from being wrong. It is a simple matter of fact. People (including myself, all the time) use the word 'hopefully' to mean 'it is to be hoped' when in fact it means ''in a hopeful manner'; the usage is widespread and only the most pedantic refuses to acknowledge what is actually meant. This doesn't prevent every person who uses it in that manner to be incorrect.



			
				TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The only anyone would even bother trying to make the distinction at this point is if they wanted to position tabletop RPGs as superior to computer RPGs, in some elitist gesture. Trying to undermine an established and well-understood use of the term is inherently going to rub fans of videogames the wrong way.




It is not an elitist position when one actually has a position of superiority over others, instead of a pecieved one; in this case, the fact that the term RPG when applied to computer games is being used incorrectly.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 1, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> As I pointed out earlier, just because lots and lots of people call a tomatoe a vegetable, their sheer numbers don't prevent them from being wrong. It is a simple matter of fact. People (including myself, all the time) use the word 'hopefully' to mean 'it is to be hoped' when in fact it means ''in a hopeful manner'; the usage is widespread and only the most pedantic refuses to acknowledge what is actually meant. This doesn't prevent every person who uses it in that manner to be incorrect.




Except, of course, that you're making up your own definition in order to exclude video game RPGs from the overall RPG category.

It's sort of like if I decided to define phones by having a physical phone line connected to a wall. Now cell phones aren't considered phones anymore. After all, they have no phone line, so anyone who calls them phones is incorrect. Cell phones just simulate phones, they aren't actually phones, since they're based off of phones and have so much in common with them. The fact that we use them for the same purpose has no bearing, because my definition excludes cell phones from being "real" phones. If you were to not use the phone line definition, then we'd have to start calling walky talkies phones!


----------



## Kem (Aug 1, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> One can _attempt _ roleplaying in a CRPG but you quickly run up against the limitations of the medium, even in one where you can talk 'in character' to other PC's controlled by real people.




The same thing happens with a Bad DM.  However, by your logic, having a Bad DM turns D&D into a non-Role Playing Game. So seemingly to you, the fact that a game is a RPG or not is determined by the DM, and as such, NO game by itself is a Role Playing Game.

Where this is interesting is that the computer game designeers and developers ARE the DM in a computer based RPG. So some must be good and make RPGs and other must be bad and make Gs.



> If I'm playing a rogue and I'm given a mission to kill the young prince, like as not I have no choice but to kill the young prince to go further into the game. What if the personality of the thief I'm playing wouldn't kill a child no matter what? Well, I'm kinda screwed then. Even in a well-written game that has multiple pathways through it, there's very likely not going to be a pathway that would match what my PC would do. Sooner than later, I'm _going _ to hit a choice that my PC in a tabletop game would refuse to do. In that case, I have to either (1) just abandon trying to roleplay at all, or (2) modify my vision.




There is a cRPG where if this is the case you can skip it.  World of Warcraft Quests are not required to advance, but if you don't want to do a certain dungeon you don't advance, which is ok because doing more in that "Dungeon" Line is dependant on doing earlier things.

As such World of Warcraft fits your definition of RPG.  Which I find Interesting.  Many MMORPGs fit but regular cRPGs do not.

How do you feel about Oblivion and Morrowwind?



> There is nothing at all wrong with modifying your vision! We have to do it all the time in any RPG, or otherwise you're a stick-in-the-ass prima dona stereotype Method actor. But... _Enough _ modifications build up and we're right back to (1) again.




Which means you have to have a good DM, making the fact that a game is an RPG or not completely reliant on having a "Good" DM.

Which some computer RPGs have, and others do not.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 1, 2007)

Kem said:
			
		

> However, by your logic, having a Bad DM turns D&D into a non-Role Playing Game. So seemingly to you, the fact that a game is a RPG or not is determined by the DM, and as such, NO game by itself is a Role Playing Game.




That would be exactly correct; it is possible to play an RPG so badly that you're not really playing an RPG anymore but a somewhat more complex boardgame. It's not _nessesarily _ determined by having a good GM, but that's the safe way to bet. I _have _ seen a couple games where the players basically wrested any control away from the GM because he was so terrible and for a couple sessions effectively did the 'troupe-style' of play mentioned in Ars Magica before they found a much better GM.



			
				Kem said:
			
		

> There is a cRPG where if this is the case you can skip it.  World of Warcraft Quests are not required to advance ... As such World of Warcraft fits your definition of RPG.




No, because there is little to no role assumption possible in it. It and others like it are close and getting closer; they're very much like a badly-run D&D game. You can do _some _ role assumption in them, but it's very minimal at best. And eventually you still run up on the limitations of the environment.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 1, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> As I pointed out earlier, just because lots and lots of people call a tomatoe a vegetable, their sheer numbers don't prevent them from being wrong. It is a simple matter of fact. People (including myself, all the time) use the word 'hopefully' to mean 'it is to be hoped' when in fact it means ''in a hopeful manner'; the usage is widespread and only the most pedantic refuses to acknowledge what is actually meant. This doesn't prevent every person who uses it in that manner to be incorrect.



You seem to have a poor grasp of how language works. There is no such thing as the "one true definition" of a word. The _only_ thing that matters is the widespread use of a term. No one person has the right to tell others that word usage is incorrect. This is the reason we get regional dialect and lingual shift, after all.

In the case of your example, certainly, the _scientific_ definition says that a tomato is a fruit. This is a scientific definition, so it _only applies to scientific discussion_, since that is the field of discussion where such precision is required. And even for other people of authority on the matter, farmers and nutritional experts, tomatos still count as vegetables. Regardless, the scientific definition is only more accurate when having a scientific discussion of plant biology, and does not override the layman supermarket use of the term.

Even with that taken care of, I reject your claim that this analogy is applicable to the current discussion. After all, the two uses of the term RPG do not even refer to the same thing. Essentially, it is a single word with two distinct definitions. One definition is "a genre of videogames", and the other definition is "a type of game played with dice and imagination" or something more elaborate.

A better example of what is going is the use of the word "plant". One definition is "a biological organism that is non-motile and often absorbs sunlight", and another is "a factory". If you were to claim that a factory could not be called a plant, since biologists defined plants to be a certain thing, it simply would not make any sense, since both definitions are commonly accepted. The same thing is happening here in the discussion of "RPG".




> It is not an elitist position when one actually has a position of superiority over others, instead of a pecieved one; in this case, the fact that the term RPG when applied to computer games is being used incorrectly.



 So you are explicitly stating here that pen and paper RPGs are better then electronic RPGs? Thus, you are stating that your fun is better than someone else's fun. How can you say that is anything _other_ than elitist?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> You seem to have a poor grasp of how language works.




Ad homimen attack.

While you are correct about the nature of linguistic drift, you seem to fail to realize that changing definitions cannot be conflated.  Thus, if a whale was once considered a fish, and a trout is now considered a fish, that does not mean that the term "fish" as applied to a trout now necessarily applies to a whale.  Nor does it mean that, if we went back in a time machine, that a whale would actually be a fish under the modern sense of the word.

Similarly, the term "rpg" once had a more specific meaning that did not encompase what are now called "computer rpgs".  Simply because an industrial segment coopts a term doesn't mean that the term is justified, or that use of the term is acceptable to all people.  

I, for one, have long ago agreed that, if you alter the original meaning of the term to include computer games, then by necessity computer games are rpgs under the altered meaning of the term.  That doesn't make them rpgs under the original meaning, however.



> So you are explicitly stating here that pen and paper RPGs are better then electronic RPGs? Thus, you are stating that your fun is better than someone else's fun. How can you say that is anything _other_ than elitist?




No, he is very specifically stating that the term RPG applies to RPGs rather than computer games, and seems to be stating that he believes this to be more than a subjective statement.  The "wrongbadfun argument" doesn't apply.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that you're making up your own definition in order to exclude video game RPGs from the overall RPG category.




Excepting, of course, that that meaning of rpg goes back to the roots of the term, was not made up by WayneLigon, and is included or implied in many early rpgs.  And, of course, that the person who was most involved in coining the term on this thread stated that it meant what WayneLigon suggests in meant, and that the meaning he uses for it precludes computer games at this time due to the restrictions they impose.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, he is very specifically stating that the term RPG applies to RPGs rather than computer games, and seems to be stating that he believes this to be more than a subjective statement.  The "wrongbadfun argument" doesn't apply.



I'd say that's precisely what wrongbadfunism is. The claim that one style of roleplaying is objectively better than another.

Wayne's been quite explicit that rpgs without acting are not as good as ones with acting. Thus, for him, to define a game as an rpg makes it inherently better -



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Is it _bad _ to do that? Not really, he said in an offhanded manner. I've done it when I was just in the mood to game with friends and not take on the added work that really getting into character and setting a mood and all the rest. It's not _bad_, but it's also not as good as doing the work of role-playing, either. I don't condemn people that enjoy playing like that on a regular basis, but I will say they could do better. I don't dislike them: I kinda pity them.


----------



## Cameron (Aug 1, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> That would be exactly correct; it is possible to play an RPG so badly that you're not really playing an RPG anymore but a somewhat more complex boardgame. It's not _nessesarily _ determined by having a good GM, but that's the safe way to bet. I _have _ seen a couple games where the players basically wrested any control away from the GM because he was so terrible and for a couple sessions effectively did the 'troupe-style' of play mentioned in Ars Magica before they found a much better GM.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because there is little to no role assumption possible in it. It and others like it are close and getting closer; they're very much like a badly-run D&D game. You can do _some _ role assumption in them, but it's very minimal at best. And eventually you still run up on the limitations of the environment.



Excepting, of course, that the term "role assumption" need not mean "be anything but yourself with utterly no limits whatsoever except that you can't be yourself". Role playing is playing a role. It can be *any* role, including projecting your own self (ethical outlook, mannerisms, mode of talking, accent, etc.) into an artificial setting, which by its very nature, will have some defined parameters. Sure, a setting being arbitrated by a living person would be more adaptive and therefore more fluid than one set out within a computer programme, but at the end of the day, there are still parameters and boundaries that you cannot (or in many cases, should not) violate.

To say that there is a threshold in these boundaries which will elevate one game into a role playing game while another is not to be granted this title smacks highly of elitism.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that that meaning of rpg goes back to the roots of the term, was not made up by WayneLigon, and is included or implied in many early rpgs.  And, of course, that the person who was most involved in coining the term on this thread stated that it meant what WayneLigon suggests in meant, and that the meaning he uses for it precludes computer games at this time due to the restrictions they impose.




I would then argue that the term "roleplaying game" goes back further than the person who popularized the term and is much more general than the specific use of it that encompasses the D&D game. I would go on to say that the phrase as was used to describe D&D then was expanded upon to include all sorts of games, one of which is the popular video game genre.

You're basically saying that if Alexander Graham Bell had included in his definition of the telephone "uses a wire to transmit" that anything that deviates from this definition is not, in fact, a phone and is merely a _simulation_ of a phone. Thus a cellular phone is not a sub-category of "telephone" but is a completely different thing.

This is why we've coined terms like P&P and Tabletop RPG to distinguish those games from CRPGs, TRPGs, MMORPGs, etc. They aren't the same, yet they belong to the super-category of "Role-playing Game."


----------



## Scribble (Aug 1, 2007)

wait... but what about when your girlfriend/wife buys, that new skimpy French maid costume she found in Fredericks of Hollywood, and then surprises you later that night???

Is THAT roleplaying?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'd say that's precisely what wrongbadfunism is. The claim that one style of roleplaying is objectively better than another.




Perhaps, but there's a difference between claiming one objectively better, and claiming that two things are objectively different.  It is quite possible that WayneLigon is doing both, but the quote being responded to that I responded does not seem to me to be an example thereof.  

It is not an elitist position when one actually has a position of superiority over others, instead of a pecieved one; in this case, the fact that the term RPG when applied to computer games is being used incorrectly.​
In this quote, WayneLigon seems to me to be referring to a position of superiority re: argument (i.e., a belief that his argument is superior), rather than his gaming.

Therefore, I conclude that what I responded to was an attempt to conflate WayneLigon's argument with his value judgement.  While WayneLigon's value judgement is certainly subjective, that doesn't mean his argument is wrong.

Which is why the "wrongbadfun argument" didn't apply (IMHO).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I would then argue that the term "roleplaying game" goes back further than the person who popularized the term and is much more general than the specific use of it that encompasses the D&D game.





Example the usage of the term from a pre-D&D source, please.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> wait... but what about when your girlfriend/wife buys, that new skimpy French maid costume she found in Fredericks of Hollywood, and then surprises you later that night???
> 
> Is THAT roleplaying?




The very best kind!      

(So long as you are allowed to react/act spontaneously!)


----------



## Cameron (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but there's a difference between claiming one objectively better, and claiming that two things are objectively different.  It is quite possible that WayneLigon is doing both, but the quote being responded to that I responded does not seem to me to be an example thereof.
> 
> It is not an elitist position when one actually has a position of superiority over others, instead of a pecieved one; in this case, the fact that the term RPG when applied to computer games is being used incorrectly.​
> In this quote, WayneLigon seems to me to be referring to a position of superiority re: argument (i.e., a belief that his argument is superior), rather than his gaming.
> ...



A superior position according to whom? WayneLigon? Is another's opinion that CRPGs are superior to traditional PnP RPG an automatically flawed argument because it is a "fact" that they are not?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> A superior position according to whom?




Well, it seems clear that WayneLigon thinks his position is a superior one.  Whether or not it is, of course, is subject to debate, but I don't think he is wrong in saying (paraphrasing here) that a person with a superior argument that believes his argument to be superior is an elitist.  It therefore follows that a person who _believes_ that his argument is superior is not an elitist for holding that belief.....although he may be wrong.

Of course, I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the simply line of reasoning that says that if computer games are extended to be role-playing games, why isn't Monopoly or Chess?  Nor has the Madden Football analogy been adequately addressed.  We have seen a lot of people say that certain computer games are rpgs because of how they are similar to role-playing games, and acknowledge that they fail to fully capture the games they are similar to, and yet fail to make the leap that they are therefore simulations of role-playing games.

These things together, to my mind, suggests a definition that fails to define, and is therefore a weaker position.  YMMV, and probably does.



> Is another's opinion that CRPGs are superior to traditional PnP RPG an automatically flawed argument because it is a "fact" that they are not?




They are certainly superior in some ways.  I've yet to see a DM crunch numbers as fast as a computer can, for example.    As far as which is more fun, I am inclined toward rpgs over computer games, but I know people whose inclinations are exactly the opposite.


RC


BTW, what do you think "Elitists versus Inclusionists - Do tomatoes play RPGs?" is supposed to mean?  An off-handed ad hominem attack in the (new) thread title itself?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ad homimen attack.



 More accuratly, an admitedly and probably regrettable flame that preceds my argument. It is not ad hominem if it is not the argument itself.



> While you are correct about the nature of linguistic drift, you seem to fail to realize that changing definitions cannot be conflated.  Thus, if a whale was once considered a fish, and a trout is now considered a fish, that does not mean that the term "fish" as applied to a trout now necessarily applies to a whale.  Nor does it mean that, if we went back in a time machine, that a whale would actually be a fish under the modern sense of the word.



 Err... You are going to be clearer onwhat the heck you are meaning here... I don't see either the logic, or how it applies to my argument, at all... Let me try to dissect the analogy... Fish=RPG... Whale=computer RPG... Trout=pen and paper RPG, correct?

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the whales (computer RPGs) are perfectly equivalent to pen and paper RPGs because they share the same name. That is an absurd argument. I siad they were "similar" earlier, but I never once said they were the same, because they are not. They are two very different things, each of which is becoming more different each year, and I never claimed similarity.

This might be a case of you misinterpreting the goal of my argument. I will need to elaborate my argument below.



> Similarly, the term "rpg" once had a more specific meaning that did not encompase what are now called "computer rpgs".  Simply because an industrial segment coopts a term doesn't mean that the term is justified, or that use of the term is acceptable to all people.



 To be blunt, you are far too late to be condemning the "unacceptability" of this term now. It is already widespread, and might already be wider spread than the use of RPG for D&D type games. One of the most important classic videogame RPGs, Dragon Quest, was first released in May of 1986, and has thus been considered an RPG for 21 years. There are much older games for the PC. Whole generations have grown up calling that game an RPG. Any battle to avoid the usage of that name has already been lost. 



> I, for one, have long ago agreed that, if you alter the original meaning of the term to include computer games, then by necessity computer games are rpgs under the altered meaning of the term.  That doesn't make them rpgs under the original meaning, however.



Again, you misunderstand my argument (or perhaps are just restating your own after quoting me?). I never once said that the "definition for RPG has expanded to include". I said that, because of historical similarity, a new definition for RPG has been created. It is the same thing as a new definition for "plant" being created to describe a type of factory. It seems I will need to elaborate my argument further...

Very well then, let us look at this chronologically. Somewhere more than 20 years ago, various people started making games that, to varying degrees, played a bit like pen and paper RPGs (games like Ultima, the first Pool of Radiance game set in the Realms, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy). They were a unique genre, similar to but very different from adventure games like the Zork or King's Quest series. For lack of any other name to call this genre, the name RPG was applied to these games by fans and other people who needed to make the distinction, and the name sticks.

Over the next 20 years, more games like those early videogames are made. People called Final Fantasy an RPG, so of course, fans knew that Final Fantasy 3 must also be an RPG. Dragon Quest was an RPG, so Dragon Quest 4, which was very simiar in stlye except more complex, must also be an RPG. As years passed and these game crossed into their 5th and 6th iterations, all kinds of games of the same style emerged (Breath of Fire, Suikoden, etc), all evolving from the base set of games that were called RPGs. It was a distinct progression, which occured completely independant of any influence from D&D or the like.

So now, there are two forms of RPG. One is the pen and paper RPG, which is a tabletop game that evolved from the original Dungeons and Dragons through new interpretations like GURPS or HERO and new editions. The other is the RPG genre of videogames, which evolved independantly and became something totally new and distinct from pen and paper RPGs.

Thus, the two were historically related, but they are currently unrelated. Pen and paper RPGs and electronic RPGs are not the same thing, and should not be considered the same thing. But, the name RPG equally applies to both, since the name was applied to both since the beginning of their existence. Two seperate definitions of the same word.

As such, the whole premise of this thread, appraising whether or not electronic RPGs deserve the name RPG based on how they emulate the experience of playing D&D, is _completely absurd_. It is the same thing as appraising the value of Chess or Go upon its ability to emulate real tactical warfare. Chess and Go arn't trying to emulate tactical warfare, they are trying to be fun and interesting games. Similarly, electronic RPGs are not trying to simulate D&D, or even be anything remotely like D&D, they are emulating older iterations of the electronic RPG genre, and are trying to be fun on their own terms.

Game makers like Wizards of the Coast and Malhavoc Press use the term RPG because fans of pen and paper RPGs recognize the term and understand the kind of game it implies, based on their experiences with other games called RPGs. Similarly, videogame companies like Square-Enix or Nippon Ichi use the term RPG because fans of games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest will recognize the usage, and will guy their games based on the emrits of those games. Two different groups, using different definitions of the same word.

I guess, to answer the original title of this thread: yes, computer RPGs should indeed be called RPGs, but no, they are not pen and paper RPGs, and they don't want to be.

EDIT: By the new title, if this is about Elitism vs. Inclusion, and I am arguing for neither, than am I just in the wrong thread and should have been smarted than to stick my head into a hornets nest that was raging before I got here?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The very best kind!
> 
> (So long as you are allowed to react/act spontaneously!)




There has to be a joke in here about NPCs... but I don't think I'll go there...


----------



## Cameron (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, it seems clear that WayneLigon thinks his position is a superior one.  Whether or not it is, of course, is subject to debate, but I don't think he is wrong in saying (paraphrasing here) that a person with a superior argument that believes his argument to be superior is an elitist.  It therefore follows that a person who _believes_ that his argument is superior is not an elitist for holding that belief.....although he may be wrong.
> 
> Of course, I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the simply line of reasoning that says that if computer games are extended to be role-playing games, why isn't Monopoly or Chess?  Nor has the Madden Football analogy been adequately addressed.  We have seen a lot of people say that certain computer games are rpgs because of how they are similar to role-playing games, and acknowledge that they fail to fully capture the games they are similar to, and yet fail to make the leap that they are therefore simulations of role-playing games.
> 
> ...



By advocating that he is superior, WayneLigon has, in effect, stated that his opinions should matter more than anyone elses. This means that his definition is the "right" one, and that any deviations from that is by default "wrong". Since he is also advocating that point of view, it also is implicitly implied that his is the "right" fun and everyone else are "wrong". That is where the whole wrongbadfun thing comes in.

Anytime you play a role, even at work or at school/university, you are roleplaying. What the role is is irrelevant. In effect, we are all actors on a stage that just so happens to encompass the entire universe. In this I do agree with Shakespeare. So yes, down to the fundamental definition of role playing, playing chess and Monopoly can be considered roleplaying (and if you have seen one of my friends play both games, you'd *definitely* consider it role playing, given the trash-talking irritating persona he adopts while playing those games).

Btw, what is YMMV? Seen it, but don't know what it means.

I don't know about the thread title. It seems a bit odd, a failed referrence to "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?", the book that was the precursor to Bladerunner, by the looks of it.


----------



## Cameron (Aug 1, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> There has to be a joke in here about NPCs... but I don't think I'll go there...



I'd lean more towards cohorts, but you are right. Let's *not* go there...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 1, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> To be blunt, you are far too late to be condemning the "unacceptability" of this term now. It is already widespread, and might already be wider spread than the use of RPG for D&D type games. One of the most important classic videogame RPGs, Dragon Quest, was first released in May of 1986, and has thus been considered an RPG for 21 years. There are much older games for the PC. Whole generations have grown up calling that game an RPG. Any battle to avoid the usage of that name has already been lost.




Surely you understand linguistic drift enough to know that what seems "lost" now might be "won" later.  Nor I am just now condemning the term; this argument is as old as the first computer "role-playing" game and will be going on, I imagine, long after you and I are dust. 



> I said that, because of historical similarity, a new definition for RPG has been created.




Okay then, if you go back upthread, you'll see that I said the something along the same lines earlier.  Consider, then, that there are two definitions of rpg, the original one (Def A) and the new one (Def B).  The set of objects that falls within Def A is called X, and the set of objects that falls within Def B is called Y.  It is possible for any one of these to be true:

1.  Set X and Set Y are the same set.
2.  Set Y contains Set X.
3.  Set X contains Set Y.
4.  Set X and Set Y overlap.
5.  Set X and Set Y do not overlap.

What I contend is (2).  Set Y (those objects falling under Def B) contains within it a subset which is Set X.  However, the borders of Set X (those objects falling under Def A) do not include additional objects of Set Y by association.

If the term in question was "fish" and Def A was "any non-tetrapod chordate, i.e., a animal with a backbone, has gills throughout life, and have limbs, if any, in the shape of fins" and Def B was "any creature known to spend all or the majority of its life in water", depending upon which definition you were using, a whale would or would not be a fish.  However, the inclusion of the whale in Def B in no way implies that it should be included in Def A.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with your point.  However, within the original context in which the meaning of the term was brought up (whether or not rpgs are doing better now or during the TSR run, related to Mr. Gygax's comments in this thread), Def A is the germaine definition.

Moreover, I don't think anyone is telling you that you cannot use Def B if you think it valid; rather some are saying that they do not use Def B and do not consider it valid themselves.  Or, at least, that's my position.

RC


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Surely you understand linguistic drift enough to know that what seems "lost" now might be "won" later.  Nor I am just now condemning the term; this argument is as old as the first computer "role-playing" game and will be going on, I imagine, long after you and I are dust.



 Well, considering that the only people who argue this term are the pen and paper RPG players, and the mainstream videogame players don't even know this arguement exists, your argument may not be totally lost, but it seems grim and unfeasible.

I will omit a quote for the rest of your post to save space.

Regardless, Crowking, I think you need to be clearer about exactly what you consider Definition A and Definition B to be exactly, since I think there are two pairs of definitions floating around right now, and I think you are arguing based on a different set than me.

Definition Pair 1:
A (old): "RPG" refers to pen and paper RPGs.
B (new): "RPG" refers to both pen and paper RPGs and electronic RPGs.

In this framework, yes, B is a subset of A, and thus this is what I think you are referring to. But these are not my definitions.

Definition Pair 2:
A (current, alternative to B): "RPG" refers to pen and paper RPGs
B (current, alternative to A): "RPG" refers to a genre of videogames

This is my framework. The concept of "old" and "new" definitions is irrelevent, since they are both currently used, and yet they are not the same.

So, in your X and Y set framework, I am arguing that it is option 4, Set X (pen and paper RPGs) and Set Y (videogame RPGs) are totally different, except where minor overlap occurs (Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, for example). At the very least, I don't think most makers and fans of videogame RPGs consider their hobby to be a subset of the larger RPG hobby (especially considering that videogame RPGs might very well be more popular and mainstream than pen and paper RPGs as a whole).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Example the usage of the term from a pre-D&D source, please.




It was talked about up thread. I'm not looking for it. Especially since you're sidestepping my (clever) cell phone analogy so readily! I notice that most of my arguments are being ignored. I'll assume that to mean that no one can counter them.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 2, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> By advocating that he is superior, WayneLigon has, in effect, stated that his opinions should matter more than anyone elses. This means that his definition is the "right" one, and that any deviations from that is by default "wrong". Since he is also advocating that point of view, it also is implicitly implied that his is the "right" fun and everyone else are "wrong". That is where the whole wrongbadfun thing comes in.




It's kind of hard for me to explain. I don't say 'wrong' since if you _enjoy _ a play style that minimizes or ignores role playing, then it can hardly be wrong. I do say that a style that emphasizes roleplaying is 'more fun' than when it is absent. Such has been my repeated experience over many years. 

It's been my experience that many - certainly not all, but many - of the people that I have encountered who have been in such games and then later go to a game where  actual roleplaying occurs, they find the game play experience much much more satisfying. They are likely to return to it again and again, rather than play for awhile and then drop away from the hobby when gaming becomes inconvenient for them.



			
				Cameron said:
			
		

> Btw, what is YMMV? Seen it, but don't know what it means.




Your Milage May Vary; ie, two of us, reading or doing the same thing, may have different experiences based on our own perceptions, opinions, etc.


----------



## Cameron (Aug 2, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> It's kind of hard for me to explain. I don't say 'wrong' since if you _enjoy _ a play style that minimizes or ignores role playing, then it can hardly be wrong. I do say that a style that emphasizes roleplaying is 'more fun' than when it is absent. Such has been my repeated experience over many years.



This plays directly to "wrongbadfun"...


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2007)

"Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Academic Achievers Messageboard. I know that all of you came here because you take pride in your academic accomplishments, and this entire organization is devoted to discussion of, and improvement of, everyone's academic life.

Now, just to break the ice, I'd like to point something out. I notice that some of you are choosing to study French in school as your foreign language. I've thought about it pretty carefully, and, well, if you're doing that, then you're obviously not interested in real academics.

I mean, seriously. French? Mandarin is the language of the future, quite frankly, in terms of where the big business opportunities are going to be, and if your school doesn't offer Mandarin (which, really, it should), Spanish is the next logical choice in terms of versatility and business preparedness. The very definition of *Academic* involves the root, *Academy*, and since academies are designed to prepare people for real-life business pursuits, only languages that further business interests can legitimately be considered academic in nature.

Please bear in mind that I don't consider 'not interested in real academics' to be a value judgment. Some people like true and worthy academic endeavors, and others enjoy learning to conjugate _savoir_ and trying to remember which verbs use "to be" instead of "to have" in their past-tense forms. Both pastimes are challenges, albeit in very different ways, but only Mandarin, and to some extent Spanish, offer a truly *academic* challenge, and it is improper to speak of anyone studying French or Latin as studying in an academic manner.

I know that many people will incorrectly refer to people studying French as being academic, and I've made my peace with that. For the sake of correctness, however, I will be referring to them as pseudo-academics in my discussions. There is no reason for anyone to be insulted; despite the fact that this is a forum specifically devoted to discussions of an academic nature, people who study these pseudo-academic languages will, I am sure, still be welcome here."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 2, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It was talked about up thread. I'm not looking for it. Especially since you're sidestepping my (clever) cell phone analogy so readily! I notice that most of my arguments are being ignored. I'll assume that to mean that no one can counter them.





What argument was ignored that hasn't been answered upthread dozens of times?  Give me the post # and I'll be sure to respond.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 2, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Definition Pair 2:
> A (current, alternative to B): "RPG" refers to pen and paper RPGs
> B (current, alternative to A): "RPG" refers to a genre of videogames




I'm fine with this set of definitions in principle, except that I think that your definition A doesn't actually define the term it seeks to define.  I believe that the meaning of the term RPG as it relates to "pen and paper RPGs" is large enough to include other forms.  For example, D&D played over a server is still D&D.  Eventually, if computer technology continues to improve, I imagine that there will be an RPG that meets both A and B.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 2, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that you're making up your own definition in order to exclude video game RPGs from the overall RPG category.
> 
> It's sort of like if I decided to define phones by having a physical phone line connected to a wall. Now cell phones aren't considered phones anymore. After all, they have no phone line, so anyone who calls them phones is incorrect. Cell phones just simulate phones, they aren't actually phones, since they're based off of phones and have so much in common with them. The fact that we use them for the same purpose has no bearing, because my definition excludes cell phones from being "real" phones. If you were to not use the phone line definition, then we'd have to start calling walky talkies phones!




If this is what you're talking about, TW, then it has been answered:

Excepting, of course, that that meaning of rpg goes back to the roots of the term, was not made up by WayneLigon, and is included or implied in many early rpgs. And, of course, that the person who was most involved in coining the term on this thread stated that it meant what WayneLigon suggests in meant, and that the meaning he uses for it precludes computer games at this time *due to the restrictions they impose*.​
If your cell phone only worked like two cans on a string, then it would be a simulated phone (at best).  If it limited who you called to people within a given area, it will still not function as a phone.  Likewise, the _limitations of the form, specifically as apply to the ability to play a role_ are the factors that make myself (and others) say computer games are not, at this time, role-playing games.

RC


----------



## Xyxox (Aug 2, 2007)

I have to say, the arguments related to Monopoly being an RPG is convincing me that Video games can be RPGs, too. the way I've always played Monopoly was to take the role of a busnessman, forming deals and even going so far as to write up contractual agreements (usually on a $1 bill of monopoly money). Since I can see monopoly being considered an RPG, I'm going to ahve to change my mind and consider WoW an RPG, too.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm fine with this set of definitions in principle, except that I think that your definition A doesn't actually define the term it seeks to define.  I believe that the meaning of the term RPG as it relates to "pen and paper RPGs" is large enough to include other forms.  For example, D&D played over a server is still D&D.  Eventually, if computer technology continues to improve, I imagine that there will be an RPG that meets both A and B.
> 
> 
> RC



Well, yes, D&D played over a server, whether via some kind of electronic utility or just a play-by-post game, is counted under my first definition. Or at least, it would, if I wasn't too lazy to write a rigorous definition. They are games played with a DM and a group of players, using written down stats, etc.

I am not as certain as you about there eventually being an RPG that meets both A and B, unless you count Neverwinter Nights, or incredibly advanced AI Dungeon Masters get created, or RPG support tools get so advanced that a person can single-handedly create a game with the complexity of a modern videogame RPG. Honestly, I am not as optimistic as many about the development of technologies like those, and the Neverwinter Nights thing is debatable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 2, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I am not as certain as you about there eventually being an RPG that meets both A and B, unless you count Neverwinter Nights, or incredibly advanced AI Dungeon Masters get created, or RPG support tools get so advanced that a person can single-handedly create a game with the complexity of a modern videogame RPG. Honestly, I am not as optimistic as many about the development of technologies like those, and the Neverwinter Nights thing is debatable.




I never meant to imply certainty.  I, for one, believe that we have the whole AI thing ass-backwards.  I think we should begin by trying to cultivate some form of "emotional intelligence" first, and then layer reasoning on top of that.  However, if we could at some point create such a beast, and it didn't perform one of 1001 science fiction scenarios that see humans enslaved or eliminated , then I could imagine that a game meeting both definitions could quite easily come about.  If Roger Penrose is right about the nature of the mind, quantum computers (if we ever were able to make them!) might well be a step in the right direction.

I could even imagine, in some Star-Trek-like future, that tabletop games would cease to be considered true RPGs simply because they don't allow you the breadth of role-assumption and choice that the holodeck does.

As an aside, I found myself wondering yesterday how closely Second Life would adhere to my definition of a RPG, with the participants en masse acting like a DM surrogate.....And how I would feel about a fantasy game that modelled Second Life's ability to permanently change the enviroment and own the fruits of your labour.

It might be true that the capacity for a computer RPG, even meeting my criteria, exists right now, even if it hasn't been fully exploited yet.  I think that the first group to put together a cRPG-type game in which, when you slay the dragon, the dragon stays slain, and in which real commerce can occur, and which follows something along the lines of the Second Life business model, that group is going to make a lot of money indeed.

RC


----------



## Kem (Aug 2, 2007)

I propose that CRPGs have no restrictions.

Just fewer rules and no DM ONHAND to ad-hoc it.

Same as a DM who only allows exactly what is in the rule book.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Is Madden Football real football?  If not why not?
> 
> ...




RC, you neatly ducked my comment without dealing with it, so let's try again.

Is Madden real football?  No of course not.  We'll all agree to that.  It is a simulation of a football game.

Is playing Dungeons and Dragons really living in a fantasy world?  No, (certain movies aside) of course not.  We'll all (I hope) agree to that.  It is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.

Is playing Baldur's Gate really playing Dungeons and Dragons?  No, of course not.  There are any number of differences, despite BG using a number of rules from D&D.  It is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.

What BG is not is a simulation of playing D&D.  No CRPG is a simulation of playing D&D.  They are all simulations of living in a fantasy world.  

One does not need to simulate playing an TRPG in order to play an RPG.  Tabletop RPG's do not have some sort of monopoly on role play.  One can role play in a rather large number of ways.  Just as flicking a paper ball is a simulation of playing football, it is also not a simulation of playing Madden Football.  However, a to be a simulation of playing football does not require simulating playing Madden Football.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is Madden real football?  No of course not.  We'll all agree to that.  It is a simulation of a football game.




Is A really B?  No, A is a simulation of B.  Got it so far.



> Is playing Dungeons and Dragons really living in a fantasy world?  No, (certain movies aside) of course not.  We'll all (I hope) agree to that.  It is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.




Is A really B?  No, A is a simulation of B.  Got it so far.



> Is playing Baldur's Gate really playing Dungeons and Dragons?  No, of course not.  There are any number of differences, despite BG using a number of rules from D&D.  It is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.




Is A really B?  No, A is a simulation of C.    

How does that follow?  Properly, A is a simulation of B, which is itself a simulation of C.

It isn't that I "neatly ducked your comment" but that we have been down this road all too often.  You're claim that Baldur's Gate is not a simulation of playing D&D (although, if memory serves, it certainly suggests that it is on the package!  ) requires that I accept it as a given, as it is not backed up by any reasoning or evidence, and I do not accept it as a given.  Especially as, if I do so, I must accept that "simulation" means something different for role-playing games than it means for everything else.

Unless a new (i.e., not already dealt with in the course of this conversation) argument is forthcoming, I suggest that we agree to disagree.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 3, 2007)

Umm, 'scuse me?

A TRPG is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.
A CRPG is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.

Where's the C?

In what way is playing Baldur's Gate simulating playing D&D?  It is simulating adventuring in Forgotten Realms as the spawn of Bhall.  It borrows rules from D&D, sure, but, it isn't simulating playing a TRPG.  Again, unless your box of Baldur's Gate included arguing with your DM or the smell of Cheetos, how is it simulating playing a TRPG?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In what way is playing Baldur's Gate simulating playing D&D?





What made you ask, "Is playing Baldur's Gate really playing Dungeons and Dragons?"

Unless a new (i.e., not already dealt with in the course of this conversation) argument is forthcoming, I suggest that we agree to disagree.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What made you ask, "Is playing Baldur's Gate really playing Dungeons and Dragons?"
> 
> Unless a new (i.e., not already dealt with in the course of this conversation) argument is forthcoming, I suggest that we agree to disagree.
> 
> RC




Where's the C?

Playing BG is not really playing D&D.  It's not even simulating playing D&D.  It's simulating the same thing as D&D - acting within a fantasy world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Where's the C?
> 
> Playing BG is not really playing D&D.  It's not even simulating playing D&D.  It's simulating the same thing as D&D - acting within a fantasy world.




Hopefully this will make it clearer, because if not I cannot imagine anything that would:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Is Madden real football?  No of course not.  We'll all agree to that.  It is a simulation of a football game.




Is X really Y?  No, X is a simulation of Y.  Got it so far.



> Is playing Dungeons and Dragons really living in a fantasy world?  No, (certain movies aside) of course not.  We'll all (I hope) agree to that.  It is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.




Is B really C?  No, B is a simulation of C.  Got it so far.



> Is playing Baldur's Gate really playing Dungeons and Dragons?  No, of course not.  There are any number of differences, despite BG using a number of rules from D&D.  It is a simulation of living in a fantasy world.




Is A really B?  No, A is a simulation of C.    

How does that follow?  Properly, A is a simulation of B, which is itself a simulation of C.

You ask first:  Is A really B?

You then state that A is not B, a conclusion that I agree with, BTW.

You then state that A is not a simulation of B, but rather a simulation of C, a positon that not only comes out of the blue, but breaks with the analogy to Madden Football and D&D that you previously supplied.  There is no logical connection to what came before, excepting that you ask if A is B, and based upon the conclusion that B is a simulation of C, if one follows the analogy given, if A is a simulation of B, and B a simulation of C, then by extension A is also a simulation of C.  

It isn't that I "neatly ducked your comment" but that we have been down this road all too often.  You're claim that Baldur's Gate is not a simulation of playing D&D (although, if memory serves, it certainly suggests that it is on the package!  ) requires that I accept it as a given, as it is not backed up by any reasoning or evidence, and I do not accept it as a given.  Especially as, if I do so, I must accept that "simulation" means something different for role-playing games than it means for everything else.

If that doesn't make the problem with your analogy clear enough, nothing that I (or, I suspect, anyone) says ever will.  

Unless a new (i.e., not already dealt with in the course of this conversation) argument is forthcoming, I suggest that we agree to disagree.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 3, 2007)

RC, you seem to be saying that two things cannot simulate the same thing without one of them being a simulation of the other.

D&D simulates fantasy adventure.
CRPGs simulate fantasy adventure.

Neither CRPGs nor D&D must be simulations of the other for this to be true.

The real way to say it is:

A simulates C.
B simulates C.

It's that simple.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> RC, you seem to be saying that two things cannot simulate the same thing without one of them being a simulation of the other.




No; I am saying that the analogy that Hussar supplies to conclude that A and B both simulate C, and that B doesn't simulate A, doesn't actually do so.  Especially when we are discussing a product packaged and marketted as a simulation of D&D.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Especially when we are discussing a product packaged and marketted as a simulation of D&D.




No we aren't. Your definition of simulation is wrong.

You seem to think that anything _like_ something else is a simulation.

EDIT: In other words, _Nirvana_ is not a simulation of _Pearl Jam_.

Of course, this whole line is pointless to the discussion at hand as nobody was apparently ever using the simulation thing to justify their position, as demonstrated in the other thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You seem to think that anything like something else is a simulation.




EDIT:  Straw man, by the way.    


I am glad you are certain of your position; I do not find it compelling.  The reverse is, no doubt, also true.  The poll demonstrates that, at least so far as EN World goes, there is no universal, or even overwhelming majority, answer.

Unless a new (i.e., not already dealt with in the course of this conversation) argument is forthcoming, I suggest that we agree to disagree.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  Straw man, by the way.
> 
> 
> I am glad you are certain of your position; I do not find it compelling.  The reverse is, no doubt, also true.  The poll demonstrates that, at least so far as EN World goes, there is no universal, or even overwhelming majority, answer.
> ...




You said that the Simpson's movie is a simulation of the Simpson's. 

Quote a CRPG maker that specifically calls a CRPG a "simulation" or even some defintion somewhere that uses the actual term "simulation." I haven't seen that from you yet. You're inferring the word simulation from the wording that an CRPG tries to give a "similar play experience." Likewise, Nirvana gives a similar sound experience to Pearl Jam, but that doesn't mean they're a simulation of Pearl Jam.

And, the poll doesn't have anything to do with the simulation discussion at all, so you can't reference it for this.


----------



## Shadeydm (Aug 3, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You said that the Simpson's movie is a simulation of the Simpson's.
> 
> Quote a CRPG maker that specifically calls a CRPG a "simulation" or even some defintion somewhere that uses the actual term "simulation." I haven't seen that from you yet. You're inferring the word simulation from the wording that an CRPG tries to give a "similar play experience." Likewise, Nirvana gives a similar sound experience to Pearl Jam, but that doesn't mean they're a simulation of Pearl Jam.
> 
> And, the poll doesn't have anything to do with the simulation discussion at all, so you can't reference it for this.




I don't find Nirvana and Pearl Jam all that similar actually.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Especially when we are discussing a product packaged and marketted as a simulation of D&D.



I thought I covered this in one of my big posts above, but I guess not...

When videogame publishers advertise a game as an RPG, this is not intended to be a reference to pen and paper RPGs at all. It is intended to be a reference to earlier videogame RPGs.

For the most part, I don't think videogame companies even care that D&D, or the D&D fanbase, exists. If a D&D player likes videogames, then that person is a possible customer, but if a D&D player doesn't like videogames, then why bother? They are trying to create a fanbase for their own products, and are not trying to borrow a fanbase from pen and paper RPGs.

Keep in mind, games like Baldur's Gate, Dungeons and Dragons Tactics, and the like, are not meant to bring more D&D players into the world of videogame RPGs. They are meant to bring more RPG players into the world of pen and paper RPGs.

Overall, I think your claim is just incorrect. Whether or not you consider videogame RPGs to be a simulation of D&D, most game developers don't think so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Quote a CRPG maker that specifically calls a CRPG a "simulation" or even some defintion somewhere that uses the actual term "simulation." I haven't seen that from you yet.




http://www.amazon.ca/Icewind-Dale-2/dp/B000065DGH

Return to the Spine of the World, that famous mountain range deep within Dungeons & Dragon's official world, the Forgotten Realms, for party-based adventure par excellence. Icewind Dale II is a throwback to an earlier time _*when D&D simulation*_ meant six party members, 2-D graphics, and a heavy focus on story and real-time strategy game tactics.

Icewind Dale II plays like Baldur's Gate with one major difference: you create and control your entire party, which leaves you free to experiment with the huge array of options D&D 3rd Edition makes possible. Halfling paladins, wizards with thieving skills, it's all possible because Black Isle dutifully added all the new skills, rules, options, and feats given to D&D characters in the tabletop game.

The story line is long and epic and maybe too focused for its own good. You can experiment with any character combination you want, but you can't really range far and wide, adventuring as you wish.

http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=566460&forum=42

NWN - is really the ultimate single character D&D simulation that has been created, combined with a vehicle (toolset) for transporting your imagination into the game itself, and a DM Client for that all-important Game Master element that is critical to D&D PnP.

http://www.2404.org/previews/442/Dungeons-and-Dragons-Online-Preview

It's also not a great D&D simulation as to replace Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_gameplay

Baldur's Gate is an in-depth D&D simulation supporting up to six cooperative players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_role-playing_games

Bioware's Baldur's Gate series was no less important, as the most significant D&D games to be released since the Gold Box era. At the time, the games created the most accurate and in-depth D&D simulation to date, along with up to six-player co-op capabilities

http://www.ggl.com/news.php?NewsId=1369

However, one fact remains: there are thousands of dedicated CRPG fans who are dissatisfied with the console-based look and feel of current titles, and who continue to want to play a legitimate D&D simulation on their desktops.

http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-75065.html

Finally got to the Temple, though, and they're starting to show some glimmerings of competence, so its not all bad. Don't recommend it for people who preferred the more story-oriented play of Baldur's Gate, but if you're a fan of the old Gold Box games or just want a hardcore D&D simulation, you should give it a look.

http://www.cs.unt.edu/~donr/courses/4420/offLimitsProjects.html

Dungeon's and Dragon's style game: a visual D&D simulation (as opposed to textual), similar to the popular game Rogue (Hack). 

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...ay+"d&d+simulation"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=ca

Baldur's Gate is an in-depth D&D simulation supporting up to six cooperative players.

(Note, some of these quotes come from advertising press sent to vendors from the manufacturer, and are thus to be found on many sales sights.  Google "D&D simulation" and you'll get enough hits.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

http://psp.ign.com/articles/794/794471p1.html

Published by: XSEED Games

Developed by: Global A Entertainment

Genre: RPG Simulation


----------



## Kem (Aug 3, 2007)

I'd like to point out that there are just as many links and places that call the rules of D&D "Rules".

And just as many that call "CRPGs" "RPGs".

Showing even more that people decide what a word means, not a person.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

http://www.gamestats.com/objects/570/570802/index.html

The Bishoujou Simulation RPG - Moonlight Tale
Also known as: Simple 2000 Series Vol. 21: The Bishoujou Simulation RPG - Moonlight Tale (JPN) 
 An isometric dating simulator/adventure/role-playing game, Moonlight Tale is a budget-priced Japanese only release. 
  Publisher: D3 Publisher 
Developer: Yuki Enterprise 
Platform: PlayStation 2     ·   Genre: Turn-Based RPG Simulation 
Release Date: 04/24/03


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 3, 2007)

Those are specifically D&D inspired (and officialy licensed) games. The real trick is to find a company who calls their own original material a "simulation of D&D".

A couple games to examine:

Ar Tonelico: This is nothing like normal D&D, really.

Soul Nomad & the World Eaters: A game advertising the players ability to break the games own rules, with stuff like items that let you increase your level by 1000 instantly, and all other manner of strange things.

Etrian Odyssey: This is a game that is very much like D&D, except the developer interviews talk about how they are trying to invoke the experience of playing old game like Rogue!

Shin Megami Tensei Persona 3: A dark RPG about a bunch of high school students who fight in a lost hour between midnight and 12:01, who shoot themselves in the head with a pistol so they can summon monsters to fight their foes.

Super Robot Taisen Original Generations: A compilation of original mechs, taken from games that are giant cross-over smashfests between classic Japanese Super Robot TV shows.

I could keep listing... I invite you to explain how all of these videogame RPGs are "simulations of D&D".


----------



## Kem (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> http://psp.ign.com/articles/794/794471p1.html
> 
> Published by: XSEED Games
> 
> ...




Whoa there nelly.  Horrible example.

That is BOTH a RPG and a Simulation.

In fact it is the ONLY game on that website of that Genre.

Well the only PSP game anyways.  Still only 3 THREE PS2 Games fit.


----------



## Kem (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> http://www.gamestats.com/objects/570/570802/index.html
> 
> The Bishoujou Simulation RPG - Moonlight Tale
> Also known as: Simple 2000 Series Vol. 21: The Bishoujou Simulation RPG - Moonlight Tale (JPN)
> ...




Simluation coming from "Dating Simulation".


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> http://www.gamestats.com/objects/570/570802/index.html
> 
> The Bishoujou Simulation RPG - Moonlight Tale
> Also known as: Simple 2000 Series Vol. 21: The Bishoujou Simulation RPG - Moonlight Tale (JPN)
> ...



"Simulation RPG" is a Japanese term for what Americans call "Tactical RPGs" or "Strategic RPGs", which I think I mentioned above. It specifically refers to a videogame RPG which allows grid based strategic movement, like Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea. It is not the same thing at all as what you claim, and is just an artifact of wierd Japanese use of English words (a common phenomenon).

Sorry, try again.

Ironically, the word "Bishoujou" means that this is a porn game.


----------



## Kem (Aug 3, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> "Simulation RPG" is a Japanese term for what Americans call "Tactical RPGs" or "Strategic RPGs", which I think I mentioned above. It specifically refers to a videogame RPG which allows grid based strategic movement, like Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea. It is not the same thing at all as what you claim, and is just an artifact of wierd Japanese use of English words (a common phenomenon).
> 
> Sorry, try again.
> 
> Ironically, the word "Bishoujou" means that this is a porn game.




"Beautiful Girl" as best as I can find.  Making this a Beautiful Girl Simulation.  Or yeah, most likely (er definitly) a porn game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Those are specifically D&D inspired (and officialy licensed) games. The real trick is to find a company who calls their own original material a "simulation of D&D".




It would be a hell of a trick, considering that doing so would be rolling out the red carpet for a lawsuit.



> It is not the same thing at all as what you claim, and is just an artifact of wierd Japanese use of English words (a common phenomenon).




In this particular case I bow to your superior knowledge.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 3, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You said that the Simpson's movie is a simulation of the Simpson's.




No, btw.  Next time you try to tell me what I said, please quote me.  I said that the Simpson's movie is a simulation of the Simpson's TV show.  I said that the Simpson's Movie and the Simpson's TV show were both the Simpson's.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 21, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> In the final analysis, internet forums resemble nothing more than Monty Python routines writ large.






Col_Pladoh said:


> I see it more as those that can't do feel better about that lack by giping about what has been done by another...an attempt to make themselves bigger by tearing another down
> 
> 
> Gary




I stand by my statement, above.

I miss you, Gary!


RC


----------



## MoxieFu (Jun 23, 2011)

I miss him but I also miss many of the others who posted in this thread whose ID's I hardly ever see around here any more. Where'd they go, Circvs Maximvs?

I hope something can happen to bring many of them back. I'd like to see them around here again.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 23, 2011)

I can't wait for Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim . . . but it's _not a role-playing game_.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> I miss him but I also miss many of the others who posted in this thread whose ID's I hardly ever see around here any more.





Truer words have never been spoken.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2011)

I open this thread to see myself arguing with RC... "Oh no!" I think to myself, "I'm posting to ENWorld in my sleep!"

*looks at date*

"Oh... 2007..." a sigh of relief. "Not going crazy... not going crazy..." as I uncurl from the fetal position.

EDIT: [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION] I just noticed you're from Tornonto! I married a girl from there.  (no not going to ask if you know her )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> "Not going crazy... not going crazy..." as I uncurl from the fetal position.




Well, I'm not sure that there's sufficient evidence to determine that you're not going crazy.....



> I just noticed you're from Tornonto! I married a girl from there.  (no not going to ask if you know her )




Though, of course, everyone in Toronto does know each other!




RC


----------

