Are there any games that lack either of those two elements, and yet which we still consider RPGs? If so, to quote Sarah Palin, you would be refudiated.
10 Best RPGs Of All Time @ MyGaming
- Thread starter Dhruin
- Start date
Are there any games that lack either of those two elements, and yet which we still consider RPGs? If so, to quote Sarah Palin, you would be refudiated.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Any strategy game incorporating character development will fit that bill.
Like Master of Magic, for instance.
So, the definition is no less moronic than the majority.
Sorry, but there it is
That's kinda my point, though.
Like Master of Magic, for instance.
So, the definition is no less moronic than the majority.
Sorry, but there it is
That's kinda my point, though.
Truly? I have never played a strategy game I wouldn't call an RPG if it actually had both. However, most strategy games tend to lack at least one. I have never played Master of Magic, but does it actually have C&C? And no, C&C does not mean "where to build a base/town" or something similar (i.e decisions typically made in games like Civilization); it refers to roleplaying a specific character through personal decisions.
The only games I've ever played that had both those elements were, without a doubt, RPGs.
I'd love to see examples of games people felt had both, but were not RPGs.
Edit: Just to clarify - Decisions made on a strategic level instead of a personal level are on par with picking magic over might when developing a character. Decisions made in Civilization are comparable to picking a class/specific talents in Diablo. In short: These decisions decide how you play the game, but say nothing about the person behind the statistics.
The only games I've ever played that had both those elements were, without a doubt, RPGs.
I'd love to see examples of games people felt had both, but were not RPGs.
Edit: Just to clarify - Decisions made on a strategic level instead of a personal level are on par with picking magic over might when developing a character. Decisions made in Civilization are comparable to picking a class/specific talents in Diablo. In short: These decisions decide how you play the game, but say nothing about the person behind the statistics.
Zaleukos
Bum
- Joined
- November 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
Maylander
M&M is based on civilization with some amusing twists. It's a cult classic if you enjoy fantasy and 4x games. You should try it if you havent already.
Character development (of heroes/generals) is linear and doesnt offer any choices at all except for which heroes to hire, but then that goes for the old goldbox games as well HoMM has much stronger character building.
That said I think it is quite hard to define RPGs, and while I agree with your priorities I consider that a wishlist rather than a definition. Plenty of dungeoncrawlers that usually are recognised as RPGs have very weak character building and C&C (the Goldbox games, Eye of the Beholder, etc). Many of the M&M games I've played were pretty weak on C&C but strong on character building, and I'd still consider them RPGs.
M&M is based on civilization with some amusing twists. It's a cult classic if you enjoy fantasy and 4x games. You should try it if you havent already.
Character development (of heroes/generals) is linear and doesnt offer any choices at all except for which heroes to hire, but then that goes for the old goldbox games as well
HoMM has much stronger character building.That said I think it is quite hard to define RPGs, and while I agree with your priorities I consider that a wishlist rather than a definition. Plenty of dungeoncrawlers that usually are recognised as RPGs have very weak character building and C&C (the Goldbox games, Eye of the Beholder, etc). Many of the M&M games I've played were pretty weak on C&C but strong on character building, and I'd still consider them RPGs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
That's the type of game I was thinking of, too. I'm playing Deathspank right now, and although the character development is there, it is 95% an automatic increase in stats, with only one small element of choice (pick a hero card/perk when you level up). As for C&C, I don't believe there has been any, so far. You are a heroic dispenser of justice, and that's about it. And yet, Deathspank seems to me to be very clearly an RPG.
I don't think trying to define "RPG" is useful if our aim is to find the one, true definition. However, I like talking about it, because it helps me think through the issue — defining the various elements, figuring out how essential each is, how they work together, etc. I like analyzing things and pulling them apart. I don't expect to arrive at any sort of perfect definition or objective truth about the nature of RPGs, though.
@Zaleukos
Sounds interesting, I am a huge fan of the old Civ games, especially Civ 2.
@Anderson
A universal definition doesn't exist beyond what you can find on wikipedia (where it's all rather general). I'm merely stating how I define RPGs. My somewhat strict definition means games like Diablo, Titan Quest and other hack'n slash/action games don't cut it. They're certainly action games with RPG elements (strong character building), but they offer no proper roleplaying.
Sounds interesting, I am a huge fan of the old Civ games, especially Civ 2.
@Anderson
A universal definition doesn't exist beyond what you can find on wikipedia (where it's all rather general). I'm merely stating how I define RPGs. My somewhat strict definition means games like Diablo, Titan Quest and other hack'n slash/action games don't cut it. They're certainly action games with RPG elements (strong character building), but they offer no proper roleplaying.
Zaleukos
Bum
- Joined
- November 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
I saw that it's $5.99 at Good old games
Civ with HoMM style tactical battles gives a decent idea of what the game is like. If you like that type of game and havent tried them I also recommend the sci-fi games Master of Orion 1 and 2.- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
GothicGothicness
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
I found an interesting definition of RPG.. so I thought I would share. An RPG is when
"The abilities and skills the player has chosen for his character has greater affect of the outcome of an action than the players skills, thus the player is playing the role of a character, and not controlling the character"
"The abilities and skills the player has chosen for his character has greater affect of the outcome of an action than the players skills, thus the player is playing the role of a character, and not controlling the character"
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
D
DArtagnan
Guest
If you're going to define something, you have to be pretty precise. You're using a personal version of C&C to define your RPGs. C&C is not implicitly based on a personal decision, as the concept very simply refers to making a choice and getting a consequence.
It's very easy to argue that you're basically playing the Wizard in Master of Magic and your strategic choices are part of your personal development as the "grand mage."
Your definition is also as silly as any, because you're saying any kind of personal C&C would be enough.
So, let's say Diablo 2 was identical - but at one single point in the game, somewhere, you had to make a personal choice of some kind. That would magically turn it into an RPG? Even if the rest was basic hack and slash?
Wouldn't the choice itself be relevant, and wouldn't it require more than one choice?
Don't you see how useless such a definition is, because there will ALWAYS be a game that either fits and isn't what you would otherwise consider an RPG, or that doesn't fit but for some reason still feels like an RPG to you.
Certainly, you're welcome to your opinions - but I really think it's an incredibly rigid mindset to set such borders around games, simply because we want them to BE something specific. The thing is, though, that each game is unique - and very few of them are clear-cut in this or that genre.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Any choice/consequence can be defined as what we here on RPGWatch refer to as C&C? If that is the case, C&C can be interesting things like:
- The change of a part in Need for Speed.
- What weapon you decide to use in Counter Strike.
- How you decide to approach Hitler in Wolfenstein 3D.
- All those options in The Sims! It's C&C heaven!
- SimCity, Railroad Tycoon, Transport Tycoon and every other simlike game ever created are filled with C&C, making games like PS:T seem shallow in comparison.
In fact, every single game that has ever been created would have loads of C&C! It's basically just a description of how you decide to play a game. Do you decide to jump on that mushroom in Super Mario, or shoot it after picking up a flower?
I honestly thought it was blatantly obvious we're dealing with personal decisions here, where "different outcome" did not refer to either win or lose (which is the consequence in most strategy games; it doesn't affect the story in any way). There is a reason why character development is not considered part of C&C mechanics, yet according to your view it clearly is part of it.
I never said choice and consequence. I said choices and consequences. Plural. Might seem very vague, but is actually a lot easier to identify than it seems: Most games are either catered towards C&C or not. There are grey areas though, such as Gothic 1. You do have choices w/consequences in the game, but rather few, and primarily in the first two chapters. Risen, on the other hand, is defiently an RPG.
That doesn't really work though. We need standard terminology, and we need to express what our specific terminology is, or communication is hopeless.
This goes for everything in life. If you want to talk about programming, you need to know the standard terminology - you can't suddenly call Object Oriented Programming something else like Thing-Infested Programming. "Well, there are a lot of things, and they seem to infest the program."
I'm not saying I expect everyone else to agree with my definition. However, as long as they are aware of my definition, it's a lot easier to discuss things - they can relate to my definition and say "yes, well, I feel that a game also needs turn based combat to be an RPG, as the original P&P RPGs all had it". Fine, now I know. That means I now know what we're discussing if we're discussing RPGs in general instead of discussing individual games.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Please point out the official definition, because I honestly am not aware it was exclusively about personal character decisions.
But, if you're talking about strictly personal decisions with varying outcomes - then I know what you mean, so that's good
But non-personal choices wasn't my point about Master of Magic, though.
In Master of Magic, or something like Civilization or Colonization - you actually do have encounters with actual choices. You meet other civilizations and you get to actually "roleplay" in your interactions with them. That's how I approach such games, and I make VERY personal choices when I engage in diplomacy and choose how to negotiate.
The same goes for the tribes you can meet in such games, where you can treat them as friends or foes. You get to form your personality as leader of a great power.
To me, most any game I play IS an RPG in a sense, because I always go for games that I can immerse my own persona in. Especially true for grand strategic games, because I honestly see that as a variation on the same theme. Like, the opportunity to build a character or an empire through that character, with an epic sweep. That's why I like HUGE RPGs a lot more than the shorter ones, and the same goes for strategy games. I rarely like those that put me into some rigid scenario where I have little influence on the "big picture". That's not for me.
I always go for the "human" race, and I always identify STRONGLY with my character as leader of an empire.
Sure, winning is foremost on my mind - but I always think about how I'm perceived and I ALWAYS try to be the "good guy" in my strategy games. Truly, a very roleplaying-like aspect.
That is, to me, CLEARLY a series of personal choices and consequences. Apparently, you don't seem to think so - but I can't understand that.
Well, I certainly consider both games CRPGs - with little doubt as to my own approach to the genre.
I find it odd that you would exclude a game from the genre, simply because you can't identify a personal character choice (by the way, one choice implies at least two outcomes - and the concept can't really be singular). This being beyond character development, which is another kind of choice.
Communication IS hopeless with that kind of terminology, don't you see that? That's my point about genres.
You're not using standard terminology. Once something becomes sufficiently complex, it ceases to be definable. We simply go around "assuming" we all agree about certain things, like what makes an RPG, but once confronted with opposing opinions - we learn that definitions just can't cut it.
You're welcome to hold on to yours, naturally, but I have zero doubt in my mind that you've played - or that you WILL play - a game that doesn't strictly adhere to your definition, and yet most everyone else will consider it an RPG - and you probably would yourself, if you weren't being rigid to support your definition.
Yes, but we're not talking about official definitions here. We're talking about that which has yet to be defined.
I have no problem if someone came up with an official definition, that would satisfy all our approaches. Yours is definitely not suitable, and FAR from it. It's way too subjective and rigid.
So, there's a difference.
Yeah, and by all means keep using it. Now I know what you require to call a game an RPG. What I'm less clear about, is exactly WHEN you think something is a choice with a consequence. It seems it's pretty specific.
Last edited:
Please point out the official definition, because I honestly am not aware it was exclusively about personal character decisions.
But, if you're talking about strictly personal decisions with varying outcomes - then I know what you mean, so that's good
But that wasn't my point about Master of Magic, though.
Master of Magic, or something like Civilization or Colonization - you actually do have encounters with actual choices. You meet other civilizations and you get to actually "roleplay" in your interactions with them. That's how I approach such games, and I make VERY personal choices when I engage in diplomacy and choose how to negotiate.
The same goes for the tribes you can meet in such games, where you can treat them as friends or foes. You get to form your personality as leader of a great power.
Sure, winning is foremost on my mind - but I always think about how I'm perceived and I ALWAYS try to be the "good guy" in my strategy games. Truly, a very roleplaying-like aspect.
That is, to me, CLEARLY a series of personal choices and consequences. Apparently, you don't seem to think so - but I can't understand that.
It's really quite simple. In Star Wars games, any story or action accepted by Lucas Arts is called canon, while any gameplay mechanic is non-canon. If you can play through the game achieving different outcomes than the canon, you are making choices with consequences. If you simply affect the gameplay, you're not.
As an example: Playing through Knights of the Old Republic (either one) as a character that primarily picks the dark side when doing quests.
Edit: I'm not saying Master of Magic is not an RPG, as I haven't played it. Civilization is definetly not an RPG though - it lacks any kind of character development. Also, it has no story or narrative to affect with C&C, the goal is simply to win.
Like I've pointed out several times: That doesn't mean I'd consider either one a bad game, simply a game of a different genre. Whether or not I label something an RPG has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy the game.
Generally I prefer hard rock/heavy metal music. However, not everything played by every heavy metal band is heavy metal. A lot of heavy bands create ballads from time to time, often very good ones.
Genres and terminologies are strict. They have to be in order to be of any use. There will always be grey areas of course, where there will be a certain amount of discussion, but most things should be easy to identify.
On the contrary - the more advanced something gets, the more important it is to use standard definitions, or you'll be stuck in an eternal loop of discussion. When Stephen Hawking discusses astrophysics, you can be certain he's not going "you know the thing, the thing with the thing, that's in the sky? You know, out in space, there's this.. THING, and it's like glowing and stuff" - "the sun?" - "yes, but I refer to it as The Glowing Ball, but to each his own I suppose".
Anyone at a sufficiently advanced level will use exceptionally advanced terminology to define and identify even the smallest items or objects. Whether you're talking to experts of music, arts or science, there will be terminology deciding what you're actually talking about.
There's a reason why doctors, medical scientists and so on all have to learn Latin terminology; it enables them to discuss the exact same thing regardless of where they are on the planet.
Like I said though, there will always be grey areas, but most things should be easy to identify.
Diablo is such an example. And no, I have never referred to it as an RPG. I never will. Still a good game though, especially Diablo 2.
Hopefully, my explanation above will make it a bit more clear. As long as I don't make exceptions to my rigid way of thinking, it's a lot easier to know exactly what is an RPG and what is not. There is no point in even asking me how I feel about the topic - anyone will instantly be able to know what games I consider an RPG.
I have to re-iterate though that calling something an RPG is not a "label of quality" to me; it merely describes what kind of game it is. I enjoy games across most genres, just as I do with music or movies. I always maintain my rigid terminology, however, making it easy to identify what I'm talking about.
Example: Many people identify Miley Cyrus as a rock star. I don't. My definition of rock is slightly more narrow and rigid than that.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
No, I brought up Civilization because I assumed you'd played it. Unfortunately, I still don't see the point about canon.
I guess you also require a somewhat linear story, then?
It sounds like the personal decision has to do with a written story, that can change based on your choices within that limitaton. "Emergent" gameplay apparently doesn't qualify.
Fair enough, but such things need to be said before anyone could ever have a chance at understanding your definition.
No, I'm not talking about quality at all - so we agree about that.
They're strict indeed, and that's the problem I'm talking about.
Did you read what I said?
If someone comes up with a definition that works, I'll accept it. They can't, though, because it certainly seems to be impossible.
The sun? That's a pretty basic concept, though, isn't it?
You seem to be forgetting my point. Every small detail can be defined relatively easily. You just call it a name. Like with the Sun. It doesn't really matter what it consists of, because for each solar system, we have a sun - and that's enough, I guess. In any case, there's nothing subjective about it - because nature tells us what we need to know.
An RPG is man-made, which is why we all need to agree. Nature doesn't help us. We can't gather together and point at a game and say "that's an RPG, ok?" and agree. Because each game is different, where as the Sun is pretty unique to our earth (forgetting the rest of the universe). That said, I wouldn't be suprised if they one day figure out our Sun isn't really a star.
But that analogy is kinda like pointing at a random RPG and saying "that's a game, ok?" - so you get my meaning.
However, once you have something like what makes an RPG - it becomes near-impossible - because no one can agree what it means. It's because it's not about math or strongly defined rules. It's about subjective opinion.
Again with the simplistic. Yeah, let's give a plant a name - but that's hardly what we're talking about.
Do you honestly believe I'm challenging whether we should have definitions at all? Please give me some credit. I'm talking about those things that can't BE defined. Like what makes an RPG.
Other examples of things that can be challenging:
What is required for an adventure game?
Is Se7en a thriller or a horror film?
They should be, but they're not.
Yeah, they're good games. The gist of my point, really, is that it MATTERS to you, whether we refer to them as RPGs or not. It doesn't matter to me, because I realise how subjective that is.
So, basically, I just don't know if they're RPGs or not. All I know is that I can't exclude them from the genre, because they have enough RPG elements to be contenders.
I feel I'm getting closer to understanding your requirements, but I wonder if you realise that your simple "Character development and C&C" definition is anything but simple, because you've had to explain it in detail. That has been my point from the start, but ok
It could be I'm a moron, but I honestly think your definition of C&C is pretty strict and rigid. Not only do the choices HAVE to be of a personal nature, but now they also have to affect "Canon" - and you even say that it's a SIMPLE concept. To you, maybe
I've spared you the trouble of getting a clear definition of what constitutes character development, but let's see about that
Oh, I get this
It's not about quality. To me, it's about needless borders.
Last edited:
The reason I brought up canon is because it's a simple way of describing what areas C&C affect and what it doesn't. Affecting story/narrative/outcome of main/side quests is what counts.
Of course. Neither one of us understand astrophysics on Stephen Hawking level, so an actual example would be useless. The point is: He'd be using very exact terms.
Definitions and terms would not exist if we always waited for everyone to agree. That's not how it happens. At some point the discussion must end, and someone must push through to end the constant bickering. In time, people will generally agree with the definitions that have been set.
Defining a genre is no more difficult than defining a historic age for example (in fact, ages are far more difficult to define than a simple computer game genre, as there are many more factors involved). When do they begin and end? What should you take into consideration? Should you focus on their cultural level, science, religion? How about nations, borders, leaders? Economy? Plagues? Diseases in general? The list goes on and on.
I assure you that far from everyone agrees with our current definitions, yet agreeing is not a requirement: The whole point is for everyone to know exactly what we refer to when we say "the stone age", "the middle ages" or "the viking age". Even the ones that do not agree that it should be called "the stone age" will know exactly what people mean when they bring it up. The system works!
- Haven't given it much thought, but I'd say at least characters, story and puzzles are requirements. Without either one, it's not an adventure game.
- Haven't seen it.
I feel I'm getting closer to understanding your requirements, but I wonder if you realise that your simple "Character development and C&C" definition is anything but simple, because you've had to explain it in detail. That has been my point from the start, but ok
It could be I'm a moron, but I honestly think your definition of C&C is pretty strict and rigid. Not only do the choices HAVE to be of a personal nature, but now they also have to affect "Canon" - and you even say that it's a SIMPLE concept. To you, maybe
I've spared you the trouble of getting a clear definition of what constitutes character development, but let's see about that
I have to admit I am somewhat baffled by this whole discussion. I really believed there was a general consensus on these boards what "C&C" meant - we've used it in many threads, and it's always referred to exactly what I refer to it as: Affecting the narrative/story/outcome of quests. The only reason I brought up canon is because Lucas Arts has a very clear definition of what is canon and what is non-canon. Should be fairly easy to see that difference.
Oh, I get this
It's not about quality. To me, it's about needless borders.
Needless? This discussion is proof of why it's the exact opposite: We've had a lengthy, completely useless discussion that would've been avoided if the borders were in place, as there would've been nothing to discuss.
If two simple forum posters can spend so much time and energy discussing this topic, imagine just how much would be saved in terms of time and effort worldwide if we had strict borders? Not everyone would agree, certainly, but the topic would still be dead: Everyone would know what the term "RPG" meant.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Without a concrete example, it's rather useless. The point stands about nature and the strict rules we've agreed upon.
Everyone to agree? Perhaps not, but certainly there needs to be a consensus - and there isn't one.
Precisely. That's why they're only useful as sort of a "springboard" and adhering to them rigidly is not only futile, but counterproductive.
But everyone DOESN'T know what we refer to in any useful manner, even if we agree on a number. That's the entire point - my god
So, Wolfenstein and Singularity are adventure games, then?
You're basically proving my point with your confusion. You assume that we all agreed, but obviously we didn't. That's the problem, isn't it.
What did you just conclude about the ages? People would still argue because they disagree.
The discussion isn't useless.
The borders are - if you adhere to them rigidly.
If you simply use them as a foundation, or some kind of "springboard" - that's fine - but as I said from the very beginning, that's all they could ever be. To actually communicate, we need to have a debate like this one - and that's exactly why I think it's a mistake to adhere to definitions like you seem to be doing.
But but, we've been going in circles.
Obviously, you think it's very useful to have such a definition, and I think it's all but useless and counterproductive.
So there
holeraw
V.G.A.
- Joined
- September 18, 2009
- Messages
- 693
I'm not sure why this is such a big deal providing a simple definition.
Wouldn't it be enough to simply identify a set of characteristics that every single representative of the genre shares while no other genre shares in its entirety?
[simplistic example] if it's sweet and cold it's an ice cream - if it's sweet but not cold or cold but not sweet then it isn't…[/simplistic example]
We have enough RPGs already to be able to do that I think… I see no need to keep trying to provide a manifesto.
Anyway, the definition provided above by GothicGothicness covers me so I'll quote it:
Wouldn't it be enough to simply identify a set of characteristics that every single representative of the genre shares while no other genre shares in its entirety?
[simplistic example] if it's sweet and cold it's an ice cream - if it's sweet but not cold or cold but not sweet then it isn't…[/simplistic example]
We have enough RPGs already to be able to do that I think… I see no need to keep trying to provide a manifesto.
Anyway, the definition provided above by GothicGothicness covers me so I'll quote it
:(I'll add to that that instead of a character there can be a small group of characters and that 'skills' should mostly refer to physical skills and not to mental ones, such as decision making for example)
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 693
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Interesting, but it doesn't cover me, though.
I find I enjoy RPGs more, when my own skill is the key factor in a succesful outcome. I prefer skills/statistics to support my human skill-set.
That's why I generally play characters that are intensely focused around a relatively narrow build, that reflects my stronger gameplay abilities. Typically, it involves fast melee combat, where my character thrives by reacting very quickly and has "tunnel-vision" during combat, because that's how my own mind works. Probably a key reason I never play mages or other "complex" classes
I guess that's why I was a pretty succesful DPS-rogue in WoW
Beyond that, you could argue that player skill is actually vital in terms of selecting the right stats/skills for the character, and in that way - the human aspect is still a gigantic part of the equation.
As for the actual "roleplaying" part of an RPG, it should be noted that I invariably play a variation of myself in a game, or some kind of an ideal version of what I'd like to be - in any given world under whatever circumstances are present.
I find I enjoy RPGs more, when my own skill is the key factor in a succesful outcome. I prefer skills/statistics to support my human skill-set.
That's why I generally play characters that are intensely focused around a relatively narrow build, that reflects my stronger gameplay abilities. Typically, it involves fast melee combat, where my character thrives by reacting very quickly and has "tunnel-vision" during combat, because that's how my own mind works. Probably a key reason I never play mages or other "complex" classes
I guess that's why I was a pretty succesful DPS-rogue in WoW
Beyond that, you could argue that player skill is actually vital in terms of selecting the right stats/skills for the character, and in that way - the human aspect is still a gigantic part of the equation.
As for the actual "roleplaying" part of an RPG, it should be noted that I invariably play a variation of myself in a game, or some kind of an ideal version of what I'd like to be - in any given world under whatever circumstances are present.
holeraw
V.G.A.
- Joined
- September 18, 2009
- Messages
- 693
That doesn't alter the validity of it though…
I might like letting my ice cream get a bit warmer before I eat it but that doesn't automatically mean that being ice-cold shouldn't be considered a prerequisite for an ice cream anymore.
Or (better) do you assume that the fact that you tend to prefer certain skills makes the existence of said skills less meaningful?
That's why I personally exclude 'decision making' from the character skills.
Isn't a variation of yourself still a role you play though?
(+ Are you a very good sword fighter or that daring and brave that you enjoy killing lions with your bare hands?)
Actually what I think we really need is some kind of solid theoretical basis that we could stand upon. Games don't have that… and I doubt they soon will.
I read that Classical music, strictly speaking, is limited to the works of Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven. Now I don't know much about about music theory - and I can't for the life of me tell the difference between those composers and the ones of late Baroque or early Romanticism… but the guy who wrote what I read is a professional that spends his life studying this, so me doubting it would be redundant and arrogant on my part.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 693
D
DArtagnan
Guest
It's valid if you require, as you said, that the character skills are more important than the human skills. I don't, so it's not valid for ME.
If, for some completely far-out reason that I can't imagine, I didn't require ice-cream to be "ice-cold" for it to be ice-cream, then it wouldn't be valid to ME - either.
But I hardly see it as a fitting analogy.
It's like you're comparing the concept of ice-cream, which to me seems rather agreed upon - with you and Gothic's personal and subjective idea of what an RPG should be.
Ehm, no, why would I?
Yes, that's why I call it roleplaying. What's your point?
Precisely.
I don't really feel competent to form an opinion about that. Strikes me as extremely restrictive, and again, pretty much useless in terms of communicating exactly what we mean by "Classical" music. A fine example of needless borders, once again.