Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;789774I felt John Wick made a well-reasoned argument, with an excellent rebuttal by Benoist. I also appreciate that Benoist didn't degrade his response back to the often-parroted "story gamers are not real gamers" tripe. In fact, I strongly suspect that Benoist has toned down his rhetoric due to his business relationship with Ernie Gygax.

Bravo, I say.

edit - I would like to point out that I am particularly fond of this quote from Jon's article. It's simple, poignant and promotes positive discourse on the nature of role-playing games:

i disagree. it should be:

roleplaying game: a game in which the players are not penalized for making choices that do not further the plot of the story or if they decide for themselves what are their motivations

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;789920I find myself in the "Who Cares?" camp more and more on topics like this.

Yes. I prefer to find something useable to me as a GM/player, than a long winded argument about a nebulous concept. Play balance? Rifts played fine, the deal with play balance is player whingeing.

CRPGs and proper tabletop RPGs are two hobbies I enjoy, but tabletop far, far more so than CRPGs and I don't see CRPGs supplanting tabletop.

Not even if we get god-like post-Singularity AIs beaming fantasy worlds straight into your brain.

Nothing beats friends, dice, booze and snacks.

Cheetoist credo still applies: people, snacks, setting, system.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789902I don't define anyone out of the hobby. I don't say they are not roleplaying. And I don't say every player plays it like I just described it. D&D is just more geared towards being played as a roleplaying miniatures game with a lot of focus on the tactical combat aspect of the game. That's just what it is. I can't help it. Don't shoot the messenger. Just stating facts here.

So how do you explain the fact that during the peak of the game's popularity in the mid-80s, D&D was not played by most of its 2 million-plus player base as a tactical miniatures combat game?

One thing that post reminded me is that Ryan Dancey is a fucking idiot. Computer games are simply better at analytic problem-solving, so games that involve analytic problem-solving are all going to migrate to the digital world? I guess nobody informed the tabletop boardgaming hobby, which is experiencing a golden age as a hobby and as an industry. Don't all those fools playing Agricola and War of the Ring realize that they should be playing on a computer, instead of getting together face-to-face to enjoy their analytic gameplay with cardboard, plastic, and wood?

Off on a slight tangent a moment.

But personally. Of the MMOs I have been on. None ever felt like an RPG. None of the people I talked to ever felt it was an RPG either. Not even Champions. They just utterly lack those elements I look for in TTRPGing.

I have though been in a few MUDs that did feel like RPing since they enforced being in character and there was incentive to group up and actually RP when not doing this or that NPC quest.

Everyone views, and experiences, it differently.

I did my part whilst I could, on the flipside of FB.
I will reiterate the need for the IC position being part of a Roleplaying game, and the flipside, a necessary outside, OOC, view in the rules makes it less of a roleplaying experience.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789924I am not into the grind either. That doesn't make it not roleplaying. It is just one of many play styles for RPGs.

There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

A well-written game will give you a lot of options for solving tasks, but you're still stuck within the limits the developers set for you, it's all illusory. There are good reasons for these restrictions - computing power, or the need to provide the same experience for millions of players in an MMO - but they're the restrictions that prevent a game from really being an RPG (And no, I don't consider high-metaplot, "sit around while the GM tells a story" sessions to be roleplaying either - that's a storytelling session, regardless of if the audience happen to have character sheets in front of them).

Now, I like videogames, they can be a lot of fun, and they can provide a sembelence of interaction and exploration - I really liked Alpha Protocol for this - but it's still not the same, and it can't be the same. The Sims, FIFA, EVE Online and GTA are closer to being RPG's than WoW, Alpha Protocol or Final Fantasy, but even they are separated.

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

They're games and they involve playing a role, hence, roleplaying games. "Meaningful player choice" has fuck-all to do with whether or not your character wants to be a farmer. I played Bard's Tale to save the fucking world, not worry about if my crops were going to get sufficient rain this season. Christ in heaven...

Quote from: The Butcher;789937CRPGs and proper tabletop RPGs are two hobbies I enjoy, but tabletop far, far more so than CRPGs and I don't see CRPGs supplanting tabletop.

It's substitution, computer games have an easier buy in and ease of use than table top games.

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

A well-written game will give you a lot of options for solving tasks, but you're still stuck within the limits the developers set for you, it's all illusory. There are good reasons for these restrictions - computing power, or the need to provide the same experience for millions of players in an MMO - but they're the restrictions that prevent a game from really being an RPG (And no, I don't consider high-metaplot, "sit around while the GM tells a story" sessions to be roleplaying either - that's a storytelling session, regardless of if the audience happen to have character sheets in front of them).

Now, I like videogames, they can be a lot of fun, and they can provide a sembelence of interaction and exploration - I really liked Alpha Protocol for this - but it's still not the same, and it can't be the same. The Sims, FIFA, EVE Online and GTA are closer to being RPG's than WoW, Alpha Protocol or Final Fantasy, but even they are separated.

This is basically spot on, and the main reason why I find computer games more boring than watching paint dry. Of course, my antipathy might also be influenced by the fact that the visuals make me motion sick and incredibly agitated...

Quote from: Ladybird;789967There is no meaningful capacity for player choice or exploration in the great majority of so-called computer RPG's; they're just slightly more advanced CYOA books.

Like in WoW, you can't speak to the NPC's and see what they think about the situation. You can't defect to the bad guys. You can't steal enemy uniforms and sneak into their kingdom that way, unless it's the Specific Mission Where You Steal A Uniform And Sneak In That Way. You can't your king to go do one. You can't say "fuck this shit, I'm going to live out my life as a fisherman"... or rather, you can, but the storyline won't progress without you, it'll just wait for you to get back. Claiming that somehow gives you control over the storyline is like saying you're got control over the story of a book, because you can stop reading at any time.

A well-written game will give you a lot of options for solving tasks, but you're still stuck within the limits the developers set for you, it's all illusory. There are good reasons for these restrictions - computing power, or the need to provide the same experience for millions of players in an MMO - but they're the restrictions that prevent a game from really being an RPG (And no, I don't consider high-metaplot, "sit around while the GM tells a story" sessions to be roleplaying either - that's a storytelling session, regardless of if the audience happen to have character sheets in front of them).

Now, I like videogames, they can be a lot of fun, and they can provide a sembelence of interaction and exploration - I really liked Alpha Protocol for this - but it's still not the same, and it can't be the same. The Sims, FIFA, EVE Online and GTA are closer to being RPG's than WoW, Alpha Protocol or Final Fantasy, but even they are separated.

I am not terribly concerned about the question of whether computer games are RPGs (since I don't play video games). But I do think even the most hack and slash of campaigns of D&D is still a roleplaying game. I don't care for hack and slash, but when I've been at a table where it is happening I know that I am watching a roleplaying game, not a board game unfold. I have my preferences with gaming, but I don't feel the need to define the hobby around those preferences.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;789924I am not into the grind either. That doesn't make it not roleplaying. It is just one of many play styles for RPGs.

Yes, I agree with that. Isn't that what I wrote?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;789984Yes, I agree with that. Isn't that what I wrote?

I was referring to wick's argument. It just seems that he is labeling what he doesn't like in the hobby as not being roleplaying.

Quote from: ostap bender;789928i disagree. it should be:

roleplaying game: a game in which the players are not penalized for making choices that do not further the plot of the story or if they decide for themselves what are their motivations

Players persuing their motivations usually leads to a plot. In the 2nd edition of the WoD it's an obligation at character creation to take some Aspirations aka goals for your character. How you should merge this with the scene by scene storytelling they always promote is a riddle to me. My bet: use the aspirations for both PC's and NPC's and drop the scenes completely.