RPGWatch Side Quest: The Avatar and Me

[Dhruin]

There's a mood...a sense the greater gaming public has embraced Oblivion as the new template for all future RPGs. Rules are out, simulations are in. But is it really the best path to better gameplay in future RPGs?
There has been an inexorable move toward action/RPGs for many years (in fact, the term is redundant – they’re almost all action/RPGs) but since the success of Oblivion, there’s a sense that the general player base has awakened and co-opted the genre -- finally, they’re saying, RPGs have crawled out of their grognard past and caught up with modern gaming. Rules-based play is old-fashioned and out-moded; being the character on screen in a cinematic first-person action extravaganza is real roleplaying.
Read our latest Side Quest here (http://www.rpgwatch.com//forums/../show/article?articleid=18&ref=2&id=1) -- and don't forget to express your opinion.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=3134)

[Corwin]

I've heard it argued, that action/rpg's are actually an oxymoron!! This would especially apply to PnP rpg's, though is a little harder to defend with computer/console based games. I tend to agree with the thrust of your argument Dhruin, so the question posed then, is WHY isn't this marriage being consumated? Why don't we see what you are proposing? Does it have to be one or the other because of cost factors and the rule of the marketplace? Why do games which strive for this ideal not succeed commercially to the same extent as say Diablo? Perhaps this compromise (if it's seen as such) leaves both sides of the debate somewhat dissatisfied!! I'll be interested to see where this discussion goes!! :)

[JuliusMagnus]

Well, I don't have a background of playing PnP games. I was the kid running around with the wooden sword and wooden shield. Not throwing the dice. After I entered High School in 1997 I almost only played RTS/Strategy games (Civ2,Red Alert, Age of Empires, etc). I only started playing RPG's when Morrowind came out. I guess, I got something like running around with a wooden sword and I was happy with it. The big difference was that the setting wasn't of my own making any more but made by the developers.

[Lethal Weapon]

Nice article Dhruin! The way I see it the heart of the matter is that a true RPG should be educational. A successful design should be able to convey characters and situations that are out of the ordinary and that we rarely or never experience in real life. The original Gothic comes to mind; it did an excellent job in exploring the feeling of helplessness of someone thrown into jail, for me that was the game's strongest point. In this respect, what makes a good RPG is no different than what makes a good novel or movie.

Take away this premise and any RPG quickly degenerates to a strategy or action game, according to whether it emphasizes rules or reflex. This is the reason that it takes more than skillful programming and spectacular artwork to create an RPG and this might be the reason that good RPGs are very rare (as are good movies or books).

In fact RPGs take this premise one step further. Not only do they allow experiencing of certain characters and situations, they also allow experimenting with them, thus raising the educational value to an unprecedented degree. What makes 'Silence of the Lambs' so popular if not for the fact that it allows any non-expert to get a glimpse into the criminal mind? Take the following dialogue for instance:

Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing, ask: 'What is it in itself, what is its nature?' What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice: He kills women.
Lecter: (scolding sharply) No, that is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does, what needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice: Anger, umm, social acceptance, and umm, sexual frustrations...
Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice: No, we just...
Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

Even if they came out of the mouth of a psychopath, those words left me a bit wiser. Now imagine an RPG with the same setting; allowing you to play with a male as well as a female version of Clarice, various classes, different backgrounds, multiple dialogue options, different endings. The possibilities for exploring the psyches of your avatars seem limitless. Of course this presupposes that the respective material already exists in the game. Now this is exactly where the importance of rules and character generation lies.

Character creation should not be about different ways of killing things, it should be about creating different character types, allowing each avatar -and thus the player through her/him- to experience the game world from a different angle, thus effectively making for different game worlds.

Keeping in mind that all that most players really want when they sit in front of the screen is to equip an axe and start killing 'stuff', it seems that RPGs have a long way to go. In my opinion this is only natural considering this is a very young genre, one might say at its infancy. Pen&paper RPGs have the advantage that they involve real people. Hence it becomes simpler to explore their personalities since they are there in the first place! To transfer the illussion to a computer game is a challenge of a completely different order. But it does have the plus of allowing for the creation of unusual and out of the ordinary characters that we would not be able to 'meet' otherwise.

To conclude, let me say that we live in an age that most human relations are described as being superficial. RPGs might be one of the ways of bridging this gap by enabling us to better understand our fellow humans. Maybe not the best way, but then again, everything is relative.

[GothicGothicness]

Nice how do you get psychopathic killers to enter a discussion like this? you do have a point though, it is interesting to explore the mind of people in an RPG and how it is affected by your different choices. It does appear a bit out of context though.

I want to reply to the fact about rules and action RPGS! First it is sad if Oblivion would become some kind of "example" of how a good RPG is done. Because all it has going for it is its graphics. I really hope this will not be the case.

But unfortunately I think this is a matter of money! BG1 / BG2 are by many considered to be great C-RPGS, yet they didn't even generate enough money to keep the people who made them hired! IMHO opinion Wizardry 8 is the greatest game, it has it's own brilliant rules... they did a lot of things right.. sirtech is gone. There are just too few people who buy these kind of games. Fallout series is another example.

Throw togheter a fairly simple action RPG, it requires a lot less development time and depth, you don't need to focus on balancing or implementing a lot of rules, and it'll sell better. This argument doesn't really work on NWN2 I know because it has faithful DND rules so they don't have to put that much time into balancing or making the rules good. But all the choicec and possibilities takes a lot of time, and creates many bugs. In an action RPG everything can be focused on making the pretty graphics ( which sells games these days ) instead!

[Lethal Weapon]

@GothicGothicness

I was just trying to make a point in what makes 'depth' by providing an example of a popular book.

[txa1265]

Empty choices make for hollow gameplay.
That exemplifies Oblivion *as a RPG* to me - I had great fun with it as an action game, but not really as a RPG. I had tremendous fun in NWN2 *as a RPG* - I loved watching my choices have impact in the world, with people and places. And I looked forward to watching the world change as a took a new character through who was different and made different choices ...

My FPS nature gives me the twitch skills to take on action or turn-based combat - but what I want differs by genre. In strategy, I *really* want turn-based - I have played enough of the RTS genre to know that it holds little interest for me, yet that is where things are headed. For the RPG genre, I prefer turn-based, but am fine with action-based - but it depends on the role-playing and story elements. Too much focus is put on making 'the next Diablo' ... or now 'the next Oblivion'. I want the next Divinity ... or Bloodlines. I like the action - but want more than the Diablo-clones can offer. But I really want more turn based stuff. Yet everything is going for that visceral kill - for the small-scale, short-term tactics over the large scale strategy. And that is a pity.

[Corwin]

Lethal, you must have loved PS-T, it had all you envisage. Pity it wasn't more successful. One day I hope that team is able to revisit that setting and give us more!! Obsidian, the challenge is out there!!

[Role-Player]

You need to write more and more often, Dhruin.

[bpstrat]

First of all, thanks for the article, Dhruin. It’s always good to read something thought provoking about RPGs.

It seems to be the heart of the matter here is about expectations. As noted we all play these games for different reasons. Some people want to level up, some want to destroy everything, some want the loot, and some what to talk to every NPC and avoid combat all together. Along with this, some people want thought-out tactical battles, while others want quick, action-packed battles. And some people play as themselves, some play as a certain character, and others just play whatever is most powerful.

When a game comes along that meets our expectations we consider it great, and hail it as the RPG of year or something. If it fails to meet our expectations, then we cast aspersions on it and ridicule it (Oblivion comes to mind here. Am I the only one who gets tired of everyone ripping on this game?) I think we should play each game with a grain of salt, knowing that it probably won't do everything the way we want it to. Play the game for what it is and just enjoy it!

[txa1265]

(Oblivion comes to mind here. Am I the only one who gets tired of everyone ripping on this game?)
So long as reviewers hold it up on a pedestal as some sort of perfect holy grail of RPG excellence it will get ripped for being the imperfect action game with RPG elements that it is. Many of us who do so put many, many hours into it, and enjoy it for what it *is* - but hate to see people portray it as something else, or suggest that *all* games should be more like that (except for the level of completeness and polish ... I think that*is* something all games can aspire to ... )

[araczynski]

Might as well throw my 3 cents into the pile...

I personally have never done the PnP thing, mostly due to lack of availability at the time. But now as a 34 year old (or maybe 33, don't remember), I don't over analyze RPG's too much. I've always thought of RPG's (pc/console games) as good books with great stories into which I actually have input as to the progression along the line of the story.

I don't value say Oblivion over NWN2 over Gothic3 based on any adherence to any rules of any genre. I value them based on the story they create, and more importantly, how well they draw me into the story. Stats and level progression interests me a great deal as well, but I don't care which rule set the system stems from, if any at all. I like to feel that my character is progressing, the best way is through stat/gear improvements. What I DO hate is when the game puts the grind ahead of the story, to stay 'challenging' or something. When that happens and I notice myself getting annoyed with the progression difficulty, I have no qualms about cheating to get past whatever's annoying me. I pay to play and have fun, not be 'challenged'. If I want challenge all I have to do is step back into the real world.

I'm enjoying NWN2 right now, and I really love the depth/vastness of the game/story, and the fact that its staying interesting. I may not like the fact that everything feels extremely segmented (sections of the world/map), but everything else about the game is great enough that I don't care (didn't care about that in NWN1+ either).

There's pluses and minuses to every RPG out there, I don't think a perfect one exists, nor will one ever. As long as they continue making FUN games I'll be there.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Character creation should not be about different ways of killing things, it should be about creating different character types,

I instictively regard this as a very important sentence.

Modern games focus so much on fighting and killing, that "role playing" is nowadays / has become = fighting.

And I'm sure Publishers believe this. Becauxe they don't understand the genre. They only see what sells, and not understanding they perceive by (what's) selling, and that is killing in action games (which also includes RTS and FPS).

[xSamhainx]

Hannibal Lecter FTW ='.'=

[abbaon]

I can't respond to your editorial directly, because we disagree on two assumptions that underpin it: that a fantasy simulation has few rules, and that such a simulation requires you to roleplay as yourself. I agree with a great deal else, and I'll make most of my points with your words.

A computer simulation is a set of rules acting on data. The finer the granularity of the simulation, the more rules it has. With its RAI and advanced physics, Oblivion has many rules. You just don't see them. I think Matt has failed to articulate his real objection to the game, and that he actually resents NWN2 for exposing its rules to him and requiring him to learn how they interact. (Although he may believe that the combat system has too many.) He just wants to interact with NWN2's world and rules without playing the numbers game of DRs and SRs. Anyway, enough of him.

I like your intimidation example. A host of factors influence your real-life ability to intimidate someone: your clothing, cosmetic accessories like prison tattoos, your physical size, your gait and stance, your mannerisms, your voice, your words, as well as the other person's estimation of himself and his knowledge of you and your actions. Some of these factors result from in-the-moment decisions, some are fixed in the short term but still reversible like your appearance, and some are permanent facts, like your height and your past. NWN2 abstracts all of these factors into a single number. Oblivion ignores them. A fine-grained simulation could conceivably model them all.

In a game with such a high level of player control, you could imagine your character as a swaggering brute, you could play him as one, and the other characters would recognise and respond to him as one. You would be roleplaying with the game, not with yourself -- not play-acting a ranger at your desk. The game would be managing a metric fuckton of rules, but you wouldn't need to know any more about them than "pirate hats are scary". And you would make plenty of big, permanent choices, but the game would write them into the memories of the NPCs, rather than your character sheet. Or both. As you say, one doesn't preclude the other.

Fable took the first, faltering step towards this ideal. Even if it fell flat on its face, since Molyneux didn't know what the hell he was doing, you could still see glimpses of a vision behind his raving nonsense. I think we'll make more progress toward it once the potential for improvements in graphics reaches its inevitable dead end, and advances in processing power outstrip our ability to spend it. Once everything is as shiny and articulated and deformable as it can possibly be, that only leaves AI.

Nice edit. Thanks for the read.

[Jaz]

I personally have never done the PnP thing (...), but I don't care which rule set the system stems from, if any at all.PnP and CRPGs (where the C stands both for 'computer' and 'console' - one might just as well call it VRPGs, with a V for 'video') have not much in common, at least not for me. Experiences are quite different, perhaps because of the aforementioned presence of the gamers. My behavior, however, tends to be the same no matter which type of RPG I'm playing... I'm not interested in killing things, and I'm not interested in being swamped with rules, either. The less visible (and easier to memorize in the case of PnP games) a set of rules is to me, the better, hence my preference for WEG's Star Wars RPG and Traveller (the rule of 8 rules ;)) when GMing. Stats-crunching? Get lost. For me, character development is not a matter of stats and numbers, thus VRPGing will never be 'real' roleplaying. Apart from that, I don't care about the genre of a game as long as it's immersive and entertaining - hybrids are very welcome, just like their non-mongrel brothers and sisters. I care more about story continuity (if there's more than one game) than game mechanics.

[Briosafreak]

Great article Dhruin

[Specialguest]

But is looking glass Thief a RPG? Maybe it is. Maybe a real rpg is a Thief game in which you can act from the start as Garrett (thief), or as the boss-hero of hammerites (sect of steampunks), the boss-hero of pagans and so on. The game world is the same but you can play the game in different ways with different objectives, with differnt tactics, with a differnt story. Not 1 game but 3-4 games to play not only different starts and story endings. In this way you can see the big gameworld from different prospectives and have a real different role playing. The opposite of Gothic 3 because you start as a thief and can improve only thievery skills.

[Geist]

There's some really interesting discussion here.
Abbaon makes a good point that a game's rules don't necessarily need to be exposed to the player in the form of statistics. As the RPG genre matures, I would prefer to see more of a move toward realism and away from statistics. In real life, if you do a favour for someone or offend a person, you don't have a number to tell you the exact effects of your actions. You have to gauge the effects of your actions by observing the person's behaviour toward you. Obviously, in a game, the numbers will still be there, but I find the world feels more natural if they are kept under the hood. The same can be applied to combat. At present, most rpgs employ a hit bar to show the damage inflicted on an opponent. A preferable way, imo, would be to get rid of the hit bar and instead have the game accurately reflect the damage onscreen, so that if a boar is attacking you and you hit it with your staff, it will limp, or stagger, or squeal and run away to show you how the blow affected it. A lot of hardcore RPGers cringe at the idea of taking out stats, but less stats doesn't necessarily mean less depth; it just means presenting information to the player in a more believable way.

On a related note, regarding rules, it would be nice to see them applied on a more global scale, not just to the player character, but also to factions within the game world. I'm so tired of the approach used by most RPGs: You're the Hero of destiny, only you can save the world, and everybody else just stands around and waits for you to interact with them. It would be nice to see more single player RPGs adopt a dynamic approach to game design, (ala space rangers 2) so that factions in the game world create alliances, go to war or take up projects independent of the actions of the player. You would, of course, have the ability to alter world events through your actions, but the world should still evolve even if you do nothing at all.
Programming NPCs to realistically respond to such changes would be almost impossible, so you would have to either sacrifice story and character interaction for unpredictability, or have major global events be scripted rather than handled by the AI. I would prefer the latter approach, since I think story and character depth are the most important elements in an RPG, and it would also be less of a programming nightmare. As long as the scripted approach still allows for a good amount of branching, I would generally prefer a dynamic world over the static model used by virtually all non-MMOGs. Sorry if I veered a little off topic here.

[Lethal Weapon]

I'm afraid there is a trap in computer games trying to accurately simulate real life. This is simply impossible. The most powerful computer on earth cannot make an accurate weather forecast; real phenomena are too complex to understand let alone simulate, there simply cannot be enough processing power for that. The best computer programs can do is to create simplified models of reality. Of course, as technology progresses, these models are becoming more and more accurate, but a game should 'accept' that it is just a game; although tech improvements are welcome, a game's main purpose lies elsewhere. This is the reason why a classic will always be playable and will be better than many -if not most- of its next gen successors. To put it simply: the race for better graphics will never end.

[Corwin]

I'd like to see the same rules which apply to my char, apply to all my enemies. I think sometimes, the games cheat!! Ever had an enemy wizard keep firing spells at you, while you run out of mana, or memorised spells? I have!!

[abbaon]

To put it simply: the race for better graphics will never end.
No, it'll sputter out as diminishing returns set in. Dev houses will bump up against their artists' personal talent limits and the technical advances that remain will no longer excite people enough to sell any additional copies. Hell, you see the first part already. Plenty of dev houses are working on next-gen games that look like last-gen games with better shaders. Even Tim Sweeney's beautiful Unreal Engine 3 can't help an artist who doesn't know that arms widen and narrow occasionally between the shoulder and wrist (http://www.tothegame.com/res/game/4900/feature/2006-08-28/screen8_large.jpg).

[BillSeurer]

I had tremendous fun in NWN2 *as a RPG* - I loved watching my choices have impact in the world, with people and places. And I looked forward to watching the world change as a took a new character through who was different and made different choices .

Yet in the end you end up at the exact same spot fighting the exact same guy having done the same quests along the way. Yeah, you can choose to be "good" or "evil" but it really makes very little difference on the large scale.

NWN2 is a fine game but its choices truly are hollow as they have almost no effect on the ultimate outcome of the game.

[magerette]

A lot of insight here into what makes things work in a game. You can have the best ruleset, the phattest loot, the most titillating eye-candy and still have a game fall flat on it's face. What makes a game great?

As Lethal Weapon pointed out, it's very much the same thing as what makes any creative endeavor succeed at the highest level: inspiration and talent; and to a lesser extent, originality and execution.

Without these qualities, all you have propelling the game is a transparent desire to make money.

Playing a game with no creative inspiration is like being trapped in an endless loop of car commercials, or politicalspeak. You have constantly the feeling of being manipulated.

[txa1265]

NWN2 is a fine game but its choices truly are hollow as they have almost no effect on the ultimate outcome of the game.
There are two routes we can take to get to my wife's parents house, which is ~200 miles away. One is pure highway, rest areas and the like. It is quick and efficient and ensured that when the kids were little we'd never be too far from a rest stop - and during the winter we knew we'd never be in an unplowed area.

Then there is the somewhat slower way along single lane 'highways', through rural areas, farms, up scenic roads, and through small towns. It takes a bit longer, but we take it when we have the time.

Each has the same start and destination - but it is the way in which we take the trip that makes all the difference.

And that is how and why I play RPG's.

[BillSeurer]

There are two routes we can take to get to my wife's parents house, which is ~200 miles away. One is pure highway, rest areas and the like. It is quick and efficient and ensured that when the kids were little we'd never be too far from a rest stop - and during the winter we knew we'd never be in an unplowed area.

Then there is the somewhat slower way along single lane 'highways', through rural areas, farms, up scenic roads, and through small towns. It takes a bit longer, but we take it when we have the time.

Each has the same start and destination - but it is the way in which we take the trip that makes all the difference.

And that is how and why I play RPG's.

But there AREN'T two routes in NWN2 (nor most other CRPGs). It's the exact same route but you can be an a**hole to the people along the way or a nice guy. You still hit all the same spots and end up at the same spot.

CRPGs just can't afford to include much optional-for-some-small-subset-of-players content. So they have no flexibility like in true face-to-face games. We put up with it because the good ones are still fun and have interesting stories.

[txa1265]

But there AREN'T two routes in NWN2 (nor most other CRPGs). It's the exact same route but you can be an a**hole to the people along the way or a nice guy. You still hit all the same spots and end up at the same spot.
I think the difference between our opinions isn't that great, so I'll just agree to disagree on this one.

[curious]

are you related to robert frost at all mike...i enjoyed your example and share those sentiments.

[Corwin]

I disagree a little; there are sometimes 2 roads in NWN2. For example, you can join the Watch or the Thieves. There are differences. I imagine that there will be other differences depending on which characters I take with me, though I haven't explored that avenue!! Two roads diverged in a Yellow Wood.....!! :)

[xSamhainx]

I like the stat-crunch, just as long as it's optional, I can pay attention and take the thing as seriously as I want to, but I definitely want the choice. This is the type of choice that endears RPGs to me. If I want to break out the rulebooks and spreadsheets and really plan everything down to the last detail twenty levels out, it's an option. Then again, if I want to just sit back and make no more decision than plunking x number of skill points into the next-higher skills of my choice, that's fine as well.

I think NWN gives you this flexibility, if you really wish to make a totally gimped character to make the game tougher, you could. If like me, you dont necessarily want to do "the best" of everything to make the game a bit more of a challenge, that's fine too. I just take the choices that feel right for my character. You can also crunch the stats on everything down to your +2 charisma loincloth and walk all over everything in the game, and that's entirely possible too. These are the type of "choices" I really care about in an RPG, the personal development that allows me to pretty much craft the exact character that i want. That's how me and my avatar become one.

[roqua]

When I watch “Braveheart” I live through William Wallace. When I read a good book I become immersed in the world and story and live through the main character(s). When I play Silent Hill I live through the characters of the game. When I play an rpg my character lives through me. I create his story, his motives, his ego, super-ego, and id.

Let’s ask this: when rpgs were created what did they allow that other forms of entertainment didn’t? You could reread the LotR trilogy, Conan, etc only so many times, and there was a big group of dorks that didn’t want to actually become warriors of legend (or weren’t motivated enough to) and that couldn’t become a powerful wizard in real life. Wargames set the foundation for what the mechanics of an rpg could be (since a lot of people wanted to try out there tactical might as generals but weren’t actually generals). So, regardless of invented the first rpg game, it would of inevitably have been invented and provided the same exact thing: the ability to create that warrior or wizard and have your own adventures in that fantasy world instead of reading about them.

Across the large spectrum of pen and paper rpg offerings, from Fudge to Harn, whether you are a gamist, narrativist, or simulationist, from the first until now, there has been only one consistent: that consistent being that the character’s physical abilities are 100% independent of the player’s. Any game, regardless of medium, that has rpg in the title cannot have physical input from the player be a factor in any game outcome or that game ceases to be an rpg and becomes something else. You cannot play a role and be a role. Here is my proof:

The LAW of Noncontradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncontradiction

As a second proof let me give these two examples.

Example 1)

Group A) is a group of people that dresses up in medieval attire and has mock battles with each other. One of the players, who plays the character Golthar, a powerful knight very skilled in the use of arms, is a wheelchair bound cripple. There combat is based on game rules on to-hit and strike mechanics, including some rolls of dice, etc, though it is played out in costume and real weapons are wielded.

Group B) this is a group of people that also dresses up in medieval attire and also engages in melee group combat. But this grup, like ARMA, really trains with swords. The speak in character and invent personas to play, but the outcome of combat is based on their personal martial skills, and not that of their character’s.

Does Group A)=Group B)? No. They are united in dorkiness but that is all. One group plays an rpg and the other group does not.

Example 2)

A new game comes out that allows people to create a character and play in a fantasy world. But all physical tests/conflict in the game are decided with the player’s skill and not the character’s skill. For ranged combat you have to knock a can off the desk, when you level up you move closer to the can, when you get a better weapon you upgrade from an elastic to a sling to wrist-rocket to a bb gun, etc. For melee combat you have to hit a cat with a toilet paper roll, when you level up and get better weapons you move to dogs with sticks, then cats with bats. To make a jump or climb a wall you have to make a jump or climb something. Etc. This might be fun, or funner than traditional dice rolling, etc, but what it isn’t is an rpg.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg that laid the first chicken, which was mothered by something chicken like but was not exactly a chicken. When something turns into something else, whether that something else is better or funner or whatever, it stops being what it once was. When things change they get a new name and stop being classified as what they used to be. Pluto was once considered to be a planet, but thanks to definitions and classification based on fact and criteria, in no longer is from the what evidence we have and what the definition of planet is. Homo Erectus and Homo Sapien is not the same thing. An actual, real rpg will never have the player’s physical skills impact their character’s. What goes up must comes down. E=MC^2. A body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a straight line with a constant speed unless and until an external unbalanced force acts upon it. The rate of change of momentum of a body is directly proportional to the impressed force and takes place in the direction in which the force acts. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Boobs are good. Gay men like penis. Kung-fu is neat. And an rpg can only be an rpg. If it is something else it can’t be an rpg. There is no such thing as an action rpg, there are action games with rpg elements.

I’m not saying that action games with rpg elements aren’t better than stupid gay rpgs, I’m saying that they aren’t rpgs. That’s logical fact. They can’t be to anyone who puts any stock in logic.

I’m sure action games with rpg elements are the future of the “crpg” genre (really yh action game with rpg element genre in reality), but they aren’t, have never been, and never will be an rpg.

I challenge anyone to disprove my logic or my examples with actual logic and examples. You can’t. You can ramble on about how awesome this is or how better or how its oppinon etc, but you can’t disprove my proofs.

The avatar is not me. The avatar is an empty shell who I fill with life. Whereas Mario is filled pre-filled with a preset life, purpose, direction, and waits to share it with whoever picks up the controller.

[curious]

rpg is a dying word that will only spawn endless debate until games stop using it as a crutch to draw people in. the hardcore gamers will continually get pissed off and the casual gamers are duped into thinking there are actually playing an in depth game which is probably more hollow than similar gamesfrom decades past. large budget games of any merit will only succeed by telling a good story through the inovations of whatever the current technology allows. whether they let you have different color hair or have the option of allying with someone or plotting there demise are really just trivial choices since now matter how advanced games get, imitating all the possible choices (parellel universes) would be a futile attempt. if a game touts the option for you to 'be a thief' or 'be a paladin' it should allow you to play those roles as accurately as possible.

someone mentioned thief, and i think the thief games as they stand let you play the 'role' of a thief more than any other game so does that not make them the best thieving role playing game by definition. the only way games that allow you to play a role will evolve is by focusing on these type of roles. this is the draw of party based rpgs since it allows you to develop simultaneous characters but since you are controling them all, you aren't making different choices based on their charcter types only learning different skills. using a fireball or a sword to brake a barrel isn't making a choice but 'burning' someones clothes so they couldn't dress and chase after you versus slaying them in there sleep is a huge choice that envolves morals-something any great story must address. how you burn the clothes or what weapon you use is a nice feature but doesn't change your 'role'.

[abbaon]

When things change they get a new name and stop being classified as what they used to be. Pluto was once considered to be a planet, but thanks to definitions and classification based on fact and criteria, in no longer is from the what evidence we have and what the definition of planet is.
The definition of a planet didn't will itself into existence. The IAU invented it, this year, and the rest of the world accepted it in recognition of that body's authority. No-one recognises your authority to define the term RPG. It's evolved many meanings over the past thirty years, but has no accepted definition. I myself will continue to apply it to any game which feels RPGish.

[roqua]

I didn't define what an rpg is. I gave proofs of what it isn't. And you can believe what you want. I could've gave proofs that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3, and you could've replied with the same statement. Anyone can belive what they want about anything. You can believe a couch is a cow, but unless you can prove it, or if I disprove it, you're belief has little wieght.

[abbaon]

roqua once again demonstrates why no-one has ever won an argument with him. Only a fool would try.

[roqua]

Or someone with a sound argument and logical conclusions to their statements. I conceded plenty of points when argueing with people, if they have a valid point. If I'm right, why would I give in?

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Playing a game with no creative inspiration is like being trapped in an endless loop of car commercials, or politicalspeak. You have constantly the feeling of being manipulated.

This is very much the feeling when I look at modern publisher's practises : They don't want originality, they want money.

Me, as an customer, I feel manipulated by their greed for money. They want me to buy a game that generates the most cash for them, things like "fun" are only to to enhance this, if they are considered from the publisher's side at all.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

rpg is a dying word that will only spawn endless debate until games stop using it as a crutch to draw people in.

large budget games of any merit will only succeed by telling a good story through the inovations of whatever the current technology allows.

I don't believe this.

You could write the same towards books and novels : Let me try this example :
"Mystery Story is a dying word that will only spawn endless debate until games stop using it as a crutch to draw people in."

You could say, that books will only succeed by telling a good story through the innovations of whatever the current technology [read : "telling technology", as I put it - meaning the technology used to tell a story via a novel/book] allows.

So, in the last consequence, you write that genres are obsolete.

I, on the contrary, believe in genres. There are several of them, even in the gaming sector : Adventures, RPGs, Jump & Run games ... Similar to those in literature : Mystery stories, thrillers, histirical novels, satire ...

I believe that there are several genres ot there, wghich are defined by their own definition. Like RPGs, for example.

What's going on now is a mixture of genres. Maybe something completely new will emergy one day (the mixture of RTS/RPG in Spellforce hints about this), or sub-genres will emerge (like the Action-RPG by Blizzard).

But I still believe there are certain genres, no matter what developers might try to mix. Of course, there will be mixtures, but still there are Giraffes and Okapis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi) that don't mix, do they ? ;)

[Specialguest]

.....someone mentioned thief, and i think the thief games as they stand let you play the 'role' of a thief more than any other game so does that not make them the best thieving role playing game by definition. the only way games that allow you to play a role will evolve is by focusing on these type of roles. this is the draw of party based rpgs since it allows you to develop simultaneous characters but since you are controling them all, you aren't making different choices based on their charcter types only learning different skills. using a fireball or a sword to brake a barrel isn't making a choice but 'burning' someones clothes so they couldn't dress and chase after you versus slaying them in there sleep is a huge choice that envolves morals-something any great story must address. how you burn the clothes or what weapon you use is a nice feature but doesn't change your 'role'.

We need to define the concept of role. Do you think that the nameless one in Gothic 3 is an character that you fill with a personality? No, cause you just make choices that are only a part (big) of the total personality. His real personality is expressed by his sarcasm when he speaks and this personality lasts since Gothic 1. Oblivion let you shape your character but in a generic manner and you are just the man (or the animal :D) that helps the died emperor. A real different role is a role that let you see the world and the story in a different manner. If you are the hero of the hammerites you see the world in a different manner, Garrett the thief has a different vision of the life, the Trickster too. I think that a RPG can attempt to let you enter in these deep roles letting you share their prospectives with a margin for your choices and this kind of game cam be still be defined a RPG.

[curious]

labels add no benifit and viewing/judging games on how they don't fit the 'genre' in question rather than their quallity of substance is ludacris to me. i realize the human mind naturally categorizes things to make our brains work more efficiently but to hold anything or waste time 'pontificating' or arguing about it makes no sense to me. to me its just another form of predjudice like looking at someones color and saying oh 'he's black' or 'she's asian'. a person can be african american and look completely white. you could go further and say all kinds of sterotypes about races, genders, which is only the mind 'categorizing' rather than 'humanizing'. calling people 'gay' or any other slew of derogatory remarks or insults only proves that some people are prone to dispute equality and don't really have any desire to 'take the quest' that envolves striping away the surface to understand the substance.

[roqua]

Huh? So having genres is dehumanizing? Are you insane? So, the next time I go to Mexico, and I ask a Mexican what their nationality is, if they say anything besides “World Citizen” (which is a label), they are prejudiced? Am I prejudiced for thinking Mexicans are Mexican? Am I prejudiced for thinking cats are cats? Or the moon is the moon? Gay men love penis. Is that being bigoted? Video game players love video games? Is that dehumanizing?

You, dear sir, are very confusing and confused.

Either you must be saying the term RPG should not be used, or that every game should be considered or be allowed to be called an RPG. In either case, lets have an example of this relating to nationality (since you somehow think that is a good analogy). Either Mexicans should no longer be called Mexicans, or everyone in the world is and can call him or herself Mexican?

Please articulate.

[curious]

im not saying it can't be used just that it holds little value/insight into what a game offers. a native mexican is different from a person born in america of mexican heritage but yet they both could look the same, speak spanish and for all purposes be identical but one is an american citizen. obviously that is more than just a label being a us citizen warrants many privlages but it doesn't change who that person is. which is why i relate it to any 'genre'. just because one game has something one would use to define it as an 'rpg' doesn't really matter if allows you the freedom of choosing different 'roles' with moral consequences.

the inescapeable 'prejudice' comes from whatever conclusion we are forced to make in defining something. i'm not advocating that it should or can be otherwise just that any argument or example can always be found to alter the definition of the label/genre.

genres are not really analagous to race, nationality, etc. but what i was trying to compare was the way things are viewed, labeled, categorized. if someone plays only games that are labeled 'rpgs' or only dates people of their own 'race, religion, etc.) they are prejudiced. that doesn't necessarily make them a bad person, just close minded for going by labels. 'rpg' is different from race, religion, etc. ,which sometimes can be exactly defined but other times not. just because someone calls them self a 'insert religion' and goes to church does that make them one if they don't adhere strickly to there faith. there is so much grey with this and other subjects i don't see any agreeance coming from their debate even if every scholar debated them 'til the end of time.

yes this subject does confuse me but anyone claiming to know what exactly defines 'a rpg' will never find enough people to agree with them since the wide variety of games that have used that label have everything and nothing in commmon.

[roqua]

First of all, prejudice means to pre judge. We all prejudge. When you hear the term rpg an image or description pops into your head. When you hear Mexican the same thing. When you hear burrito the same thing. When you hear or see a taco, same thing. We wouldn’t be able to function without preconceptions or prejudices.

Now, bigotry or racism is another storey. It seems to be you are bigoted against people that don’t view things the same way you do, and there is no question you are bigoted against the bigoted. I personally don’t really fit well into a racial label. My mother is a Sicilian born in Africa (Tunisia) and my father is a Cape Verdean born in France. What am I? I’m about a quarter black. When I lived in the NW I was considered black. In the NE, where I’m from and live, I am not considered black. My ethnicity is questionable, but my nationality isn’t. I’m American, no hyphen. For ethnicity I consider myself more Italian than anything else, but really I don’t care. What ever anyone wants to label my ethnicity is fine with me, including so-called derogatory terms.

I really don’t care what race people are, but I can and do judge them on every decision they make including religion, political views, dress, attitude, personality, intelligence, sense of humor, etc. Why? Because I can. It helps me distinguish between those who I would want to be friends with or not.

Someone whose nationality is Mexican can only have the nationality of Mexican by one of two ways: birth or naturalization. It is not confusing to separate nationality from ethnicity. Nationality is a category that makes perfect sense (in 99.9% of the situations). An actual rpg is like nationality, its easy to figure out. Now rpg elements are like ethnicity, when everything starts getting mixed in together it gets confusing. But I could look like a Mexican, act like a Mexican, and seem to be a Mexican, but my nationality will never be Mexican (unless I move there and become naturalized). Nationality is based on fact. Ethnicity is based on opinion (why are Itaians not latinos? Etc. The whole Ethnic/racial category are all based off of nonsense. Unless you break it down to Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid).

So we can easily say that nationality translates to genre, where ethnicity translates into gameplay elements. But in order for a game to be an rpg it has to be an rpg and can’t not be an rpg. An “action rpg” (really an action game with rpg elements) is of another nationality and has mixed ethnicity.

[curious]

just becuase you don't mind derogaroty terms, doesn't really give you give you the right to use them on others.

i'm sure gay people everywhere rejoice in your name when you say 'they love penis' numerous times-even if you are gay i'm not sure how you could speak for every gay person. everyones people are there own affairs.

having prejudices like i said is normal, sharing them or acting on them is discrimination. who or what you choose to associate with is 'your' own business but you are the one telling people what an 'rpg' is not. i didn't define it or state what doesn't make it, i said it didn't matter much like what anyones family tree was unless i was interested in the history behind it, which is not the case with 99% of people we meet. so why not break games down into 'elements' like you said, similar to 'qualities' in friends/people we associate with. 'rpg' a word like democrat or republican. yes you can be registered either but i was registered republican for nearly a decade 'til recently and never voted for a single one. its just a name that doesn't define much and wheter someone calls me one or the other its not much concern unless there is an attack involved. i vote for who i believe is the best, and i play what game is the best for me. i'll give a game maybe more of glance if it has 'rpg' tagged on it somehow, but i certainly don't place any expectations from it and will only purchase it based on loads of other reasons rather than that label.

nationality may translate to genre but it still as i said is meaningless since it used to describe a person and game. using your own arguments nationality is unimportant to you, so why then does the term 'rpg' or 'fps', why don't we start up a post where we come up with elements that make up good games. there are "few" elements that could be listed though are universal in every 'rpg' yet not in other genres.

[roqua]

Gay men love penis. If they didn't, they wouldn't be gay. If a gay man hated penis he would be in quite the pickle, wouldn't he? What seperates homosexual men from non-homosexuals? They like other mens penises. I don't see what is confusing about this.

I'll respond to the rest later, I rented Ricky Bobby.

[Corwin]

roqua, there is no such word as 'funner', it breaks the logical rules of English grammar!! :)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

We use genres in books and movies just as drawers. Shopkeepers just need labels for shelves.

So why not for games, too ?

Imagine a shopkeeper trying to explain a customer a thing that he refuses to give a label, or worse : Is a mixture of so many things he cannot display it properlly.

What will the customer say ? "Huh ? What is this thing now ? I'm confused."

[Dhruin]

You're getting pulled into an argument you can't win because you are discussing it on Roqua's terms.

Roqua's definition is black & white and predicated on certain absolutes (mostly that an RPG can't include any elements of player dexterity). If you accept that -- well and good. If you don't accept that absolutely, the rest of the discussion is moot.

I don't accept it, because I think genre descriptions are only as useful as the audience's understanding of the term. The greater community knows that Diablo, Baldur's Gate, WoW and Oblivion are all some form of RPG. End of useful discussion. Insisting that Oblivion is an action game and therefore they should go to ActionVault for news on it rather than RPGwatch, won't make sense to most people and would leave everyone confused.

Especially since ActionVault doesn't cover Oblivion, 'cause they know it ain't an action game.

Roqua's law of non-contradiction is a red-herring. If you accept his original premise, there's no need for further discussion. If you don't, the law is irrelevant because there is no contradiction.

Important note: what makes a good RPG is a different discussion.

[Corwin]

Haha, Dhruin, you are, of course, totally correct and we've had this entire discussion in the past, but it is always fun to WATCH people take on roqua for the first time!! :biggrin:

[Dhruin]

It's always fun. :)

[roqua]

I never actually took either of you on. So let’s have at it. I need a challenge.

“Insisting that Oblivion is an action game and therefore they should go to ActionVault for news on it rather than RPGwatch, won't make sense to most people and would leave everyone confused.”

What about jrpgs? Why aren’t they covered here? Doesn’t that lead to the same confusion? What if actionvault did cover Oblivion? Would they be in the wrong? It is a hybrid game, so both sides should cover it, right? What if a console rpg site that covered all jrpgs also covered Zelda, would that confuse anyone? Zelda is not a jrpg, but has a crossover audience.

Oblivion has a slew of rpg elements, without ever being an actual rpg. Same with bloodlines, etc. An rpg site should cover action games with rpg elements. If you covered only real rpgs you wouldn’t have much to post. You also cover the UFO: Extraterrestrials, which is a TBS. I don’t see people crying that that isn’t called an rpg. Rpgs can coexist alongside non-rpgs is harmony. I’m just factually trying to label things correctly. And a rpg is a rpg is a rpg.

“Roqua's law of non-contradiction is a red-herring. If you accept his original premise, there's no need for further discussion. If you don't, the law is irrelevant because there is no contradiction.”

Thank you for giving me credit for the law, but I didn’t invite it or it’s mathematical proofs. And there is no choice but to accept my original premise. But, for the sake of argument lets say there is a sane way to not accept simple logical fact and move on to example 1) and 2).

Please respond to these two examples. Is my thinking right or wrong? For the group A) and B) example, if there was a LARP site, and not much LARP action going on, and their LARP audience also contained a large number of people who enjoyed the mock battles of ARMA, that site wouldn’t be wrong in covering news about both. After years and years pure mock battles fans might outnumber the larp fans, but the two activities will never fit in the same category. They will always be different, no matter how much wishing and wanting or willful ignorance on the side of the fans of both activities.

You grew up playing pen and paper games, I grew up playing crpgs. Is my introductory wrong about what rpgs do and the need they were created to fill? Or my statement that in movies, books, and most video games you live vicariously through the characters, and in a rpg the character lives vicariously through you?

In pen and paper games, you can play the hack n’ slash style. The DM could use a module, like ToEE, and the players have a straight linear hack n’ slash progression through it, or it could be roleplay heavy and involve little combat. Its up to the players what type of sub-rpg genre the pnp game takes. In a crpg the sub-genre is already decided on, for the most part, by the devs of the game. But, what pnp games will never be is action games, and there will always, always be a total divide between the physical attributes of player and character.

I ask you please, please, respond to all arguments in my first post. I will gladly respond to and address your best arguments. If you make a valid point I will concede the point. If you prove me wrong I will concede the debate and never mention the topic again.

But, I think you will find that my arguments (not including the law of non-contradiction that we are ignoring for now) are correct.

[roqua]

roqua, there is no such word as 'funner', it breaks the logical rules of English grammar!! :)

You are correct. I concede the point. I lose this argument. Because I am wrong and you proved me to be wrong.

[Corwin]

Now we just need to address your use of the re-definer's fallacy and strawman!! :) I'll leave that to Dhruin!!

[roqua]

Why don't you try me out Corwin? I'd especially appreciate you pointing out any strawman's I used. Unless you're scared, in which case I'd fully understand and let you bow out gracefully. But giving it a try could be "more fun."

[abbaon]

If you prove me wrong I will concede the debate and never mention the topic again.
Okay, if you've put that on the table, I'll risk looking foolish and give this another shot.

In pen and paper games, you can play the hack n’ slash style. The DM could use a module, like ToEE, and the players have a straight linear hack n’ slash progression through it, or it could be roleplay heavy and involve little combat. Its up to the players what type of sub-rpg genre the pnp game takes. In a crpg the sub-genre is already decided on, for the most part, by the devs of the game. But, what pnp games will never be is action games, and there will always, always be a total divide between the physical attributes of player and character.
You can't determine the properties of a category through induction. Even if the early examples of RPGs were all similar in this way, it doesn't follow that the player skill/character skill divorce is a necessary condition for a thing to be an RPG. Categorization is the act of grouping dissimilar things under a label, and choosing those aspects of the things which you will consider to be essential. Just as "any collection of things can be an object" (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/emergenc.htm), any collection of properties can be a category. People could use the words couch and cow interchangeably, to denote something of roughly the same dimensions and weight as a couch or cow. I'd have no use for that classification, and would favor the terms sofa and bovine instead, but the couch-cow category would be as true as any other social fact. Most people who use the word RPG mean a game with a good number of RPG elements (and you know what those are). You, and a few other people on this site, do not. Neither group is right or wrong. Words don't mean any more than we think they do.

[roqua]

"Even if the early examples of RPGs were all similar in this way"

All examples of rpgs are similar in this way

I read, understood, and will give examples in line with your arguement.

We have the category of sparkling wine. A lot of people call this champagne. But in order for it to be actually champagne it has to be made in Champagne. You could have a Star Trek food synthesizer thing that makes a reproduction of champagne that is identical to champagne in every conceivable way, but the one little thing is that it wasn’t made in Champagne, so will never be champagne.

Champagne is just a word (and a place and a thing) but that word has the power to be true or not.

What’s Cognac? What is a centipede? A millipede? Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Who cares? I guess that depends on how much stock and weight you put in the words truth or correct. Is funner a word? Sure, if I use it as one. But is more fun or funner the correct way to express myself in the English language with all those rules it has? Truth and correct are just words. RPG is a string of words. Right and wrong are just words. And it just so happens the word that categorizes my stance is right, and you fall under the category of wrong. We can each think those words mean different things, or nothing more than we think they do. Or you could debate the examples I put up and show me how they are false, proving me wrong in the process.

[abbaon]

All examples of rpgs are similar in this way
...
And it just so happens the word that categorizes my stance is right, and you fall under the category of wrong.
Your continual restatement of the incontrovertible truth of your position, along with content-free rhetoric like this "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit, belie your claim to be discussing this in good faith. You're not open to the possibility that you're wrong. Any further words would be wasted on you. I'm done.

[Geist]

The fundamental problem with your argument, Roqua, is that you refuse to accept the fact that the usage and meaning of words in the english language can change and evolve over time. As much as it may annoy some linguistics purists, if enough people start using a word in a certain way, then the dictionary definition of that word will have to be expanded or revised to reflect the new usage.

As far as computer games are concerned, whether a game is an RPG or not is generally determined by the developers and reviewers. If a game is marketed as an RPG and the majority of sites review it as an RPG, then the majority of gamers will accept it as an RPG. You are certainly not obligated to accept it as such, just as you aren't obligated to accept the modern definition of a word and are perfectly at liberty to continue using its 18th century definition. But your position would serve little purpose, other than to create confusion when communicating with the majority of others who understand the meaning differently.

[Corwin]

Unfortunately Geist, you are committing a logical fallacy as well, called Ad Populum!! Just because people say something is an RPG, doesn't make it one!! For years, people said the earth was flat!! :)

[Geist]

Good point Corwin. Just because the majority believes in a particular thing certainly doesn't make it true. I think there is a difference, though, between facts which can be scientifically proven (which doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that they can be disproven at some point in the future) and the meaning of words, whose definitions are often ambiguous and can't be precisely defined with logical proofs. No matter how many people contend that the world is flat, it will never become flat, but if enough people call a knife a dagger, it will cease to be a knife and indeed become a dagger since the definition of the dagger has now been expanded to include the knife.

Take the Champagne example that Roqua mentioned.
One dictionary defines Champagne as:
"A white sparkling wine either produced in Champagne or resembling that produced there"
Another defines it simply as:
"Sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of France"
Which definition is correct? Since this is a matter of opinion, it is obviously impossible to prove or disprove either one. When faced with situations like this, it makes no sense to try to apply proofs to demonstrate correctness. If we accept that certain things (such as what constitutes an RPG) can't be objectively proven, then the most logical point of reference we have for discussing the subject with others is the definition provided by majority opinion (or possibly the opinion of the so-called authorities). It may be just as valid to discuss the subject based on a definition of our own choosing, but when dealing with language we are often forced to take into account the popular consensus in order to avoid confusion, whether we agree with that consensus or not.

[Corwin]

You have a valid point about WORDS, which is why I accused Roqua of making the re=definers fallacy!! :) However, changing the meaning of words is one of my pet hates!! I don't like what has happened to the word 'gay' for example. It causes problems when reading poetry and Shakespeare for example!! I'm an old fashioned purist with the English Language!! And NO CM, that's NOT because I was around when it was created!!!! :biggrin:

[txa1265]

And NO CM, that's NOT because I was around when it was created!!!! :biggrin:
You were middle-aged by then? ;)

You have a valid point about WORDS, which is why I accused Roqua of making the re=definers fallacy!! :) However, changing the meaning of words is one of my pet hates!!
The problem is that the meaning of words cycles around into creating a new reality. I was just reading the Dark Messiah review linked off of the front page, and that guy all but says 'this is the new meaning of RPG - those of you who like turn-based and more detailed stuff are (add derisive tone here) 'hardcore' people ... who don't like anything anyway' ...

[magerette]

I have to agree with you there, Mike.
Quoted from the article:

"On the surface, Dark Messiah Might and Magic is a masterful reinvention of a legendary franchise, taking turn based strategy role playing elements and transforming it into a first person action "shooter." "

The WORDS say it is a reinvention--the actuality is that it is completely divorced from its' predecessors and is an action shooter. Which is fine, but why not just say that?

Also,assuming that turning the original game into a totally different kind of game would be perceived as 'masterful' to actual players of the franchise is pretty simpleminded.

I think you're totally correct and the term rpg has been raped to the casualty ward and means whatever the reviewer or marketer thinks his imaginary audience would like it to mean.

[txa1265]

I think you're totally correct and the term rpg has been raped to the casualty ward and means whatever the reviewer or marketer thinks his imaginary audience would like it to mean.

At some point someone in a marketing department realized that adding 'customization' and 'RPG elements' to descriptions and making them interchangeable would make selling a game more easy to a broader audience. It was at that point that any and all context around actual role-playing was forever lost and dead.

[roqua]

I haven't re-defined anything, so there can be no re-definer's fallacy. I gave plenty of examples that can be challenged but no one has done so yet. If I can't be disproven, I am logically correct.

And since no one seems interested in challenging my proofs, let me ask this: what is wrong with a rpg being called a rpg and an action game with rpg elements being called an action game with rpg elements?

Corwin and I agree that BaK, which most consider to be a rpg is not a rpg, so why can't other games that are not rpgs not be considered rpgs? This has nothing to do with what I think is a good game. I love Bloodlines, I love Bak, I love JA and x-com, I love mario kart, but it still doesn't make me question what I know to be true through commen sense, historical presidence, and logic. You can love God and don't have to believe that dinosaurs were scientific satananic propoganda. You can love rpgs, love a game that has rpg elements, and still love it without it actually being an rpg.


Your continual restatement of the incontrovertible truth of your position, along with content-free rhetoric like this "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit, belie your claim to be discussing this in good faith. You're not open to the possibility that you're wrong. Any further words would be wasted on you. I'm done.

I am open to the possibility I am wrong. I've been hoping someone can disprove my proofs. I want a challenge. I'm sorry that me claiming to be right angers you, from now on I will use the more politically correct and sensitive term of "not-wrong" when refering to how right and correct I am on this issue if it will make you feel better. I'm kind of at a hang-up for what to call my adversaries. "Not-right" just doesn't have that certain charm I was looking for. Maybe a code word would work? Like "special" or "right challenged." I could use some help with the lingo.

[abbaon]

How about "on-topic"? What about "not given to dumping his ridiculous, begging-the-question 'proofs' on threads that have nothing to do with what is or isn't an RPG"? I'm okay with those.

[roqua]

"On-topic" it is. I am "not-wrong" and you are "on-topic." (The other title was too long, even as an acronym it would still be too long).

[abbaon]

Heh.

(And seven other characters. What do you have against economy of expression, Dhruin?)

[Corwin]

Roqua has now committed an Ad Ignoratiam (sp). Classically, if you can't prove something true, then it must be false and vice versa!! It's still a fallacy!! :)

[roqua]

You have now commited an Avoid. Classically, if you can't beat em, tell them they are wrong without articulation. I wish you would debate me so I could point out a fallacy in your reasoning, but you won't give any.

Why won't anyone tell me how I'm wrong? I'll take anything at this point, even the classic "it just is." Like boobs just are good. Why? Who knows? So at least say crpgs don't have to be rpgs just because... (we like it like that, who cares?, because its awesome, because labels are for sissies, etc). Something.

And maybe, just maybe, Corwin, someone can prove me wrong, or prove themselves true. But no one has tried. So I couldn't have commited an Ad Ignoratiam, because that would suppose an opposition that at least had something to add to the argument.

And its not like this even fits the catagory. I didn't say "boobs are good, he, he, prove me wrong."

So, due to the utter lack of opposition, I claim tournament rule and win by default. I am sole victor and what I have stated is law. The opposition was challenged, but never showed up.

[Corwin]

from roqua- "If I can't be disproven, I am logically correct. That is classic AI!! :)

[Geist]

You are also now bordering on argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). Just to expand on Corwin's observation of your use of AI: If I claim that shape shifting aliens live among us, no one will be able to disprove it, but making this contention makes me neither logical nor correct.

It is impossible for me to disprove your opinion (which is all it is) that an RPG can't rely on the player's manual dexterity, just as it is impossible for you to disprove my opinion that an RPG can make use of a player's dexterity, just as it is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that a banana-split is only a real banana-split if it doesn't contain any peanuts. You are taking a subjective opinion and presenting it as if it were an objective fact. Proofs in this case are useless.

[Corwin]

Which is why I referred to the re-definers fallacy in the first place, since that is precisely what the RDF frequently does!! :)

PS, did I mention that I used to teach this stuff once upon a time!! :biggrin:

[Geist]

It shows Corwin, thanks for the free lesson!
Keep this up and soon we'll all be fluent in latin :)

[Corwin]

Yeah, I studied that for several years too!! Actually, I found it quite useful many times and I'm certainly not Catholic!! :)

[roqua]

You are also now bordering on argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). Just to expand on Corwin's observation of your use of AI: If I claim that shape shifting aliens live among us, no one will be able to disprove it, but making this contention makes me neither logical nor correct.

It is impossible for me to disprove your opinion (which is all it is) that an RPG can't rely on the player's manual dexterity, just as it is impossible for you to disprove my opinion that an RPG can make use of a player's dexterity, just as it is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that a banana-split is only a real banana-split if it doesn't contain any peanuts. You are taking a subjective opinion and presenting it as if it were an objective fact. Proofs in this case are useless.

The last thing I want is other's pity. And if it's your opinion that rpgs can use player's physical abilities and still be rpgs, give examples on why. Articulate. You guys are all brilliant in how its only my opinion, etc, without having any real substance, examples, or arguments to your posts.

Tell my how it is my opinion, tell me how my examples are wrong. This peanut gallery sniping bullshit has to end. If I'm wrong, tell me how. Challenge my arguements or come up with some of your own with some substance. Besdies retarded alien analogies.

Basically, you guys need to man-up or sit down and shut up. Or at least stop with your goddamn peanut gallery bullshit. If no one wants to challenge my arguement, or come up with their own reasons as to why I wrong, then please, enough with the nonsense.

[curious]

--roqua crack corn and i don't care--

rpgwatch - the fewest deleted posts and an independent research group proves it.

[abbaon]

Sorry, Geist. He won't know what your reply has to do with his argument ("Alien analogies? Categories? What? What???") unless you respond directly to his proof. Attacking his assumptions won't cut it, because he doesn't understand that he's made any, or that a proof requires them.

[Dhruin]

Sorr, Roqua. Real world time pressures has taken me away from this thread. I'll respond when I can.

[roqua]

Sorry, Geist. He won't know what your reply has to do with his argument ("Alien analogies? Categories? What? What???") unless you respond directly to his proof. Attacking his assumptions won't cut it, because he doesn't understand that he's made any, or that a proof requires them.

RPGs exist, that is not a question. Aliens existance is not a fact. The existance of God is not a fact. Shapechanging si not a fact. You can have opinions on if aliens exist, etc. But the RPG is an invention, and this site is dedicated to the computer versions of them. My whole original post is designed to show that what this aspect of rpgs we are discusing is not opinion. So saying, "yeah huh!" when I articulated my point, or giving useless examples unrelated or connect or even lacking the ability to be connected to this argument has no bearing on anything. If you give a valid argument, I'll refute it if I can, or at least take it seriously enough and respect it enough to respond with points and a some content. Nonsense and peanut gallery sniping doesn't add any substance to this debate.

[roqua]

Sorr, Roqua. Real world time pressures has taken me away from this thread. I'll respond when I can.


I look forward to it.

[abbaon]

So saying, "yeah huh!" when I articulated my point, or giving useless examples unrelated or connect or even lacking the ability to be connected to this argument has no bearing on anything.
Only you lack the ability to connect our examples to your argument. Faced with three people apparently talking at cross purposes with him, a more capable individual might wonder if he hadn't missed the point. Not you; if you don't understand a single thing anyone says to you, you declare victory.

[Geist]

Roqua, the alien analogy to which you have devoted so much criticism was in response to your statement: "If I can't be disproven, I am logically correct". Judging by your earlier comments, it appears as though you didn't quite grasp the meaning of Ad Ignoratiam so I merely provided an example to aid in understanding the fallacy. The aliens don't actually have anything to do with RPGs (not as much as elves and dwarves anyway).;)

[Corwin]

Though a really good alien rpg would be fun to play!! :biggrin:

[dteowner]

Good Lord, this is some high-brow stuff. Do I at least get some experience points for slogging thru the quest? Perhaps a bonus intelligence point or some such?

[Corwin]

Ah, but do you need a bonus to intelligence?!! :) Well, I guess anyone who supports both the Wings and the Cowgirls needs SOMETHING!!!! :biggrin:

[xSamhainx]

No kidding.

Too much navel-staring for me. Doesnt it seem like all these convos are essentially the same one, being re-hashed over and over?

Someone get the stake and holy water for crissake!

[NYourBaseKillingYourDudes]

Roqua, you are wrong. I was playing Oblivion the other day where, you know, I control my character with most of my own leet skills. This is better than numbers because face it, math really sucks. I know Oblivion uses some numbers but they keep it hidden well so I dont see it. They're just there to keep you nerds happy. I doubt they actually do anything. Just pretend clicking the left mouse button is like rolling natural 20s OK? Anyway I bitchkilled a bandit in daedric armor (I have 10 full sets of this armor) and stole his gold. I then put it on the ground next to bum. This is real role-playing BTW.

[enodenroH]

Roqua, you are wrong. I was playing Oblivion the other day where, you know, I control my character with most of my own leet skills. This is better than numbers because face it, math really sucks. I know Oblivion uses some numbers but they keep it hidden well so I dont see it. They're just there to keep you nerds happy. I doubt they actually do anything. Just pretend clicking the left mouse button is like rolling natural 20s OK? Anyway I bitchkilled a bandit in daedric armor (I have 10 full sets of this armor) and stole his gold. I then put it on the ground next to bum. This is real role-playing BTW.


All right!!! You're back!
Sweet username btw.

How the hell did you, or where the hell did you find those armours!!!
Don't think I never found one of those... :'(

Anyway, I think you should, hummm, behave a little, and maybe they'll let you stay a little so that we could heed your preachings.

All hail VB!!!

[enodenroH]

So, due to the utter lack of opposition, I claim tournament rule and win by default. I am sole victor and what I have stated is law. The opposition was challenged, but never showed up.

Holly s..T! How could I have missed this explosive conversation!!! :lol:

Just started reading this thread a few moments ago.
Wanted to butt in and tell you that what you say makes sense.
I'll read it over again just to see...

Don't want to start a fight here but I just want to know.
Do you challenge every one like that? I mean, you'll eventually regret it.
I speak by experience...

Anyhow, I see the humour and it makes me grin quite a lot! :biggrin:

[abbaon]

Too much navel-staring for me. Doesnt it seem like all these convos are essentially the same one, being re-hashed over and over?
Gee, y'think? I honestly wonder why Dhruin bothers to write these editorials, when he could get the same result from "That's not an RPG! Discuss." But if we could have just convinced roqua to shut up about it, that'd be ninety percent of our problem solved...

[Corwin]

Wait till you see the next one from me!! Even Dhruin worries I might have been a trifle too controversial!! I might yet have to tone it down!! :)

[Dhruin]

Why do I write them? Because I enjoy doing it (when I can find the time), it's good to have new "content" for the site and the topics are actually different...even if they often devolve into the same discussion. :)

This one was actually about playing through an avatar vs putting yourself into a fantasy simulator...I suspect my obtuse writing style disguised that a little too much to steer the conversation onto that topic.

And I love Roqua's participation, so please keep it up!

@Corwin, I don't worry about it being too controversial...I'm just not sure everyone will understand you don't take a position for the sake of discussion.

[abbaon]

roqua's funny as hell when he's derailing someone else's conversation.

[Corwin]

I take 'positions' to hopefully stimulate discussion. I have NEVER claimed to believe anything I write and I will swear under oath that I never wrote it if challenged!! :biggrin: