Why I will likely never play the original Fallouts

[Risewild]

Be prepared for a wall of text, but it will contain some pictures in spoilers, to keep people interest on it.
It will also be a history wall of text, so for people who are interested in old RPG and miniature gaming history, it might be interesting to read too (although chances are people who are interested in it already know whatever I am gonna type anyway).

I know. I was there. That doesn't really clarify anything. I said as far as I know it isn't possible to play Deus Ex without roleplaying. They aren't *allowing* roleplaying if I'm right, they're requiring it. That would means it has RPG mechanics and is an RPG.

I never roleplay in any game, so I don't see how a game requires roleplaying... I don't even roleplay in games like classic Fallout games, Planescape Torment or any other game that allows roleplaying. I do not pretend I am the character I am playing with in any game. The only times I can play something and actually roleplay the character is in P&P/Tabletop RPGs. Where we have to talk and act like our characters would.
So I can't see how a game requires roleplaying to be played.
Also roleplaying is not a RPG mechanic. RPGs did not require or offer any tools to roleplay until the late 80's and early 90's (see below). When people started to see RPGs as a good way of impersonating and allowing people to play a character like in fantasy novels, mainly The Lord of The Rings and Conan universes.

Explaining why you believe them to be RPGs is kind of needed for the example to argue the point.

Why are Chainmail or Hack and Slash RPGs considered RPGs? That is not me beliveing, they are RPGs. Chainmail was the first miniature tabletop RPG and was also a wargame (it had different rules for playing with armies and for playing one on one battles), in the solo battles, it was just making your own character, pick a class/race, get your attributes, equipment and spells (if using the fantasy version) and go into a tabletop, gridded map to defeat the enemies. You even have to roll dice to see if you can hit the target and everything. Pretty much what Dungeons and Dragons was, after it got it's rules from Chainmail (it actually used the Chainmail rules).

Spoiler: Dungeons and Dragons Chainmail rules

The official manuals of the original Dungeons and Dragons contain hundreds of cases like these:

But if you're not satisfied, then I will mention the real Dungeons and Dragons.
When it was released it was a combat P&P RPG and stayed like that until years into Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (see below).

Spoiler: Official D&D Character Sheet

In that spoiler is the official D&D character sheet. Back then it was so focused on combat it didn't even have skills, the only thing your character would have would be combat related.
All the Attributes are related to combat too. Yes, even Charisma in the original Dungeons and Dragons was only used for combat purposes, since it was the attribute decided to see how many "unusual" (monsters and other critters) followers a player could keep loyal during combat.

There was only 3 character "classes" too, Fighting, Magic User and Cleric. There was no social classes like bard, spy (or rogue), etc.
The races only affected which class you could be, how many levels you could achieve on each class and little things like bonus ranged attack or resistance to spells. It was so combat focused that it was what originated the term "Hack and Slash" (see below).

Even that treasure section was just to write the treasure you got, treasure in the game was just things that were worth money so the characters could acquire better equipment or hire mercenaries.

Now, if you think that the first ever RPG, the game that created the genre and the "Roleplaying Game" name is not a RPG, then I don't think I can convince you otherwise.


"Hack and Slash" RPG is a genre, I didn't add the RPG to it, it exists since "Hack and Slash" games exist.
To be honest, it was also Dungeons and Dragons that originated the name of "Hack and Slash", it was in the 80's that a Dragon Magazine first used the term, to say that Dungeons and Dragons has the potential to be more than "Hack and Slash" (because back then, Dungeons and Dragons was pretty much combat, like I already mentioned).

Only on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (second edition in 1989) did the RPG genre moved from "Hack and Slash" into a more expansive world and characters. It was marketed for a more adult audience, but it wasn't the beginning of the RPG genre (some even thought it could be the end of RPGs).

Spoiler: The End of RPG?

From Dragon Magazine #146, June 1989:

As you can see, the first RPGs were all Hack and Slash type. The "roleplaying" was only added more than a decade after they were already called Roleplaying Games. With some even thinking it would be the end of RPGs.

So if you don't believe that Hack and Slash RPGs exist, then again I doubt I can change your mind.

I have to point out that these are NOT my definitions, I didn't invented them and called them "Hack and Slash" or RPG. This is the creation of both RPG and Hack and Slash genres. This is not personal definition, it is the real definition.

Assuming a role is not the same as roleplaying. It's more akin to acting. The role is assigned, not chosen. Performers have creative licence. They can adlib (depending on the director). Method acting involves letting yourself believe that you are the character. So all the bases are covered analogously.

You are wrong here. Real roleplaying has rules and you have to follow them.
Another history lesson:
The "Roleplay" term was first used by Viola Spolin in the late 19th century and yearly 20th century. She used it to describe a part of the mystery/crime "social games" she organized. These games followed rules, like always being in character, behave, talk and act like your character, the murderer (which was picked at random) had to follow a script like in theater plays and would also have to leave specific clues in specific places according to instructions delivered to them by the organizer.

It was called a "Theatre Game" were improvisation was encouraged, but the participants still had to follow the "be in character at all times" rule. This "be in character at all times" was the part Viola Spolin called "roleplay".

An actor that would all of a sudden improvise something his character would never do, would break those rules and be kicked out of the game or would be allowed to "take it back" and behave accordingly.

Also, acting is acting, it is not rolepay. That is why actors are called actors and not roleplayers. That is why improvisation is called improvisation and not roleplay, that is why Theatre Games are not called roleplaying games.
When I mentioned that when people roleplay, it is like they "play" a role like in a theatre play. It doesn't mean they are playing it like an actor would. I meant it to differentiate the "play" verb (behaving/pretending [example: He is playing his part. He is playing dumb. Etc.]) from the "play" verb (play a game).

Which leads to what I mentioned before, there are different "roleplays".

• There is the roleplay of pretending to be someone or a character you're not.
  • Most used these days and technically wrong. This definition doesn't even appear on Dictionaries.
• There is roleplay of imitating the behavior and character of someone else.
  • Try to faithfully behave, talk, act, think as a specific someone.
• There is roleplay of rehearsing a situation/dialogue.
  • Like a doctor's appointment for a sensitive subject, a job interview, a court hearing, etc.
• There is roleplay in psychology
  • Which is acting and behaving unconsciously in a particular role due to society expectations.
• There is roleplay in RPGs.
  • Play with your assigned character/characters and use that character's abilities to deal with the world it exists.

The problem with this is that games do not allow any real roleplaying except for the RPG roleplay (last one on that list) and the "pretend you're the character you're playing". Which again I say it is not even roleplay by the definition on any dictionary.

In other words, it requires narrative choices about ones character. And where such choices are mechanically apart of a game, then and only then is it a roleplaying game. Anything else is just a game that people can RP, no matter how much they ape the cosmetics (level ups, skill points, and the like). In other words, if you can play without roleplaying then it isn't an RPG.

The first bold part is wrong. There are thousands of games that allow that and they are not RPGs. Adventure games for example. Telltale "games" allow that and they are definitely not RPGs. Many Visual Novels allow impactful narrative choices about ones character and the choices are mechanically apart of the game, and they are not RPGs. Sports Management games allows the player to assume the role of the manager of a club, usually name it, choose age, nationality, languages spoken, knowledge of other countries teams, etc. Allows the player to decide almost everything about the team and they are not RPGs (decisions in those games include which staff is hired, training programs, which players to buy and sell, which tactics to use, which facilities to be built or upgraded, what you say to specific players during, after and before matches and you even pick what to say in media conferences and social media and those decisions have consequences). Some grand strategy games have you controlling specific characters and their lineage (your character dies and you play with one of his offspring), has many impactful narrative choices that can affect the game so much that your character can die, you can lose a war, you can lose your kingdom, you can even lose the game. Your decisions shape the world in those games, and they are not RPGs.

The second bold part, I already addressed before. Dungeons and Dragons and other RPGs from the start were all "Hack and Slash" games. They didn't allow narrative choices, they were just go into a dungeon, kill everything that attacks you and collect loot. And not only are they RPGs, they are the games who invented the genre and created the name of Roleplaying Games. No roleplaying in them.

I apologise if this post loses consistency during any part of it, it took me several hours to type because I had to stop in between of my train of thought to do stuff like going to the shop or do some emergency house work (cat was misbehaving and trying to destroy the house). So it becomes very hard for me to continue when I had stopped. Sorry about that

 

[Gizmojunk]

I am not sure about that—I don't mean the listed facts, just simply that RPG stands for "Role Playing Game", and by your assessment it would seem to mean "Rule Playing Game" (with no emphasis on the roles).

When I play an RPG, I do roleplay the PC... That does not mean that I pretend to be the PC, it means that I evaluate the situations they are in, and select the reactions that seem to be most in keeping with the character. When I play Fallout, regardless of my character's stats or skills, they are still a person who was born and raised in an institutionalized environment—essentially like those in a rather lax jail, but still living under the authorities' law in the vault. Their education was tempered by censorship, and limited truth about history, and the outside world.

Then they are sent outside, and they have to deal with what they encounter; with the things they don't know,—and with what they know... that isn't so. This kind of person would not react the way I would while exploring a new city, or when encountering strangers, and in so far as the game supports it, I'd choose the interactions with their upbringing, skills, aptitudes, motives, and assumed mental state in mind.

When I played BG1, I'd send Imoen upstairs alone, at the Friendly Arms Inn (or any other place she'd case), because none of the other party members would be burglars, (unless Montaron was there; he'd go along), and you wouldn't send Minsc, or a Paladin to protect a trespassing thief.
______

Aside:There is an interesting fellow that someone made a documentary of; he was incarcerated in 1975, and got out in 2014—to an incredible culture shock. Imagine roleplaying a character in the same situation; (though of course it's extrapolating, one cannot truly know it unless they lived it).

Spoiler

As far as Roleplaying Fallout goes, there is actually a comedic theatrical example:

Spoiler

Before birth...

Early Life...

First contact...

Second hand impressions of the new world...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9-oHgRYPrA
Sent out into the world...
https://youtu.be/8Z3N3KquVJY?t=79

 

[Risewild]

I am not sure about that—I don't mean the listed facts, just simply that RPG stands for "Role Playing Game", and by your assessment it would seem to mean "Rule Playing Game" (with no emphasis on the roles).

That is because the role in RPG is the rules of your character. You are totally correct in that aspect.
You can only decide what your character does, the rules and stats will see if you can do it or not. That is the role you're playing (role as in the character with all of it's abilities and stats).
That is why in a RPG the stuff you decide to do can fail or succeed depending on what your character can do. The rules decide that, doesn't matter how good you are at intimidating people in real life, in the RPG you're only as good as your character. And there is usually a chance of that character fail even if it is the most intimidating person in the world.

It is also why most P&P RPGs come with three large core rulebooks and why cRPGs used to come with large manuals explaining the rules too. It was also why RPGs used to be associated with nerds and geeks, because of all the rules you would have to learn.

When I play an RPG, I do roleplay the PC... That does not mean that I pretend to be the PC, it means that I evaluate the situations they are in, and select the reactions that seem to be most in keeping with the character.

And this is why I can't roleplay in games even when they offer tools for it. There has been no computer or console RPGs that I played where I haven't thought multiple times "My character wouldn't say any of this stuff" or "Why isn't there an option close to what my character would do or say in this situation?".
It always makes me feel like I'm just witnessing roleplay by the devs instead of roleplay by the player.
No game ever allowed me to roleplay the characters in any way I wanted to, except P&P RPGs. That's because computer games are way more limited than a real life GM, obviously, but it still doesn't allow me to roleplay on the games.

When I play an RPG, I do roleplay the PC... That does not mean that I pretend to be the PC, it means that I evaluate the situations they are in, and select the reactions that seem to be most in keeping with the character.

And now I have a couple of questions for you.
What happens when you play a RPG where you can't make any decisions and have no reactions?
Does a game without decisions/reactions stops being a RPG?
Because I can name plenty of RPGs that do this, I can name entire sub-genres of RPG that also do this.
Notice that I said back then that I can't roleplay even in games that have the tools to allow roleplay. I know others can do it.

But what I was talking about was the stance of "Roleplaying games have to have roleplay to be RPGs". Which is really not true. Roleplaying is not an essential part of RPGs.

The first RPG ever didn't allow roleplay, neither the second or third. They were already RPGs and were named RPGs. Even today we have many RPGs that do not allow decisions or even dialogue options, where the player is very limited to any type of input besides movement, equipment and which attack they use. And those are the majority of the RPGs out there.
From the first time a RPG appeared in this world to even today, the majority of RPGs do not allow much for roleplaying.

 

[Gizmojunk]

That is because the role in RPG is the rules of your character. You are totally correct in that aspect.

But I don't consider it so—although, I suspect that we might be arguing opposing points with the same proofs.

You can only decide what your character does, the rules and stats will see if you can do it or not. That is the role you're playing (role as in the character with all of it's abilities and stats).

I don't see it that way. I see the role as [for example] Conan, or Sauruman—with stats that match the role; there are games that just plain let you set the stats. The stats are to aid the engine in evaluating the outcome of an action, or whether to offer the action as option.

That is why in a RPG the stuff you decide to do can fail or succeed depending on what your character can do.

This is certainly preaching to the choir in my case, but those rules need only suit the freedom that the developer plans to include. If someone made Papillon:the RPG, they could do it with just giving each character a perk, and have a choice of two classes, (guard & prisoner); and have the main choices be what to do with each day in the cell.

And this is why I can't roleplay in games even when they offer tools for it. There has been no computer or console RPGs that I played where I haven't thought multiple times "My character wouldn't say any of this stuff" or "Why isn't there an option close to what my character would do or say in this situation?".

And now I have a couple of questions for you.
What happens when you play a RPG where you can't make any decisions and have no reactions?
Does a game without decisions/reactions stops being a RPG?

That is why roleplaying is not an essential part of RPGs.

I'd say that roleplaying is the only essential—it's even in the name. At minimum it's the difference between Ghosts & Goblins / or Willow (essentially the same games), and that of Cadash, and at the higher end it's potentially Planescape paired with LA Noire.

*IMO Cadash is just barely an RPG.

In answer to your question: I treat all RPGs as tools to shape, and facilitate the campaign/story...and when lacking an exact response or reaction, I pick the closest. I see the situations at their essence; it's not at all unlike how a game can have realistic, or iconographic visuals... for the depicting the exact same situations—they mean the same thing; the same actions. If anything, the more detail added, the more likely it will contradict one's idealized PC, and their actions.

 

[Risewild]

I don't see it that way. I see the role as [for example] Conan, or Sauruman—with stats that match the role; there are games that just plain let you set the stats. The stats are to aid the engine in evaluating the outcome of an action, or whether to offer the action as option.

Yes. But without the stats you wouldn't have a single RPG, instead you would have an action game, or and adventure game, or any other genre. You remove the stats from RPG you have no RPG.
Remember there are many gaming genres, and many games in many of those genres would automatically become a RPG if the characters would be assigned stats and would have to use those stats to interact and deal with the game world. While any RPG without the dependency on stats would stop being a RPG and become something else.

I'd say that roleplaying is the only essential—it's even in the name.

But how do you roleplay on games like PEDIT5, Rogue, Akalabeth: World of Doom and any game like those? They are some of the first cRPGs and they do not allow any more roleplay than Super Mario Bros.
For example, most Hack and Slash RPGs, most Dungeon Crawlers, most jRPGs, most tactical/strategy RPGs in existence do not allow more roleplaying than any other game genre. Even the first Diablo, which has rich lore doesn't allow more roleplaying than other genres.

And then we have games that allow one to roleplay and that are not RPGs, why would Football Manager not be a RPG, we literary play the role of the manager, make the character, name it, pick age and other stuff like language and nationality, we have to do the day to day activities a manager do and have to decide pretty much everything about our club. It is a perfect game to roleplay a football club manager, but it is not a roleplay.

Want to roleplay a military/mercenary guy? Play Metal Gear games, they are good for roleplaying that role, but they are also not RPGs.

So if roleplaying is definite on what a RPG is, why are games of other genres that allow roleplaying not RPGs?

I'd say that roleplaying is the only essential—it's even in the name. At minimum it's the difference between Ghosts & Goblins / or Willow (essentially the same games), and that of Cadash, and at the higher end it's potentially Planescape paired with LA Noire.

*IMO Cadash is just barely an RPG.

And you can still notice that Cadash is considered a RPG despite allowing as much roleplay as Earthworm Jim.
Because what differentiates it from the previous two games is that the main character is dependent of it's Attributes (Strength, Armor Class, Agility, Magic Points) to resist damage, deal damage, walking speed, how high it can jump, etc. While in the Ghouls & Goblins/Willow case, the characters are not dependent on any character attributes.
Which supports what I always said, it is the character being dependent of it's strengths and weakneses to deal with the world they are in that defines a RPG. Because that is the fundamental system that exist in every RPG ever made and every RPG subgenre, while allowing roleplaying is only found in a small % of RPGs in existence.

In answer to your question: I treat all RPGs as tools to shape, and facilitate the campaign/story...and when lacking an exact response or reaction, I pick the closest.

But again I ask, what about RPGs where the player has no options or input other than movement, equipment and items, and which attack to use?
You say you "treat all RPGs" like that, but most RPGs do not offer those responses or reactions. For example, all the sub-genres I mentioned at the start of this post.
Are those not RPGs too? They don't usually allow choices or reactions at all. Even the example you gave of the game Cadash (which you said you consider it barely a RPG, but still a RPG) doesn't offer any option besides choose your premade character and control it's movement and attacks.

I need to mention this again, most RPGs ever made do not allow more roleplaying than Super Mario Bros. And there are other gaming genres that allow more roleplay than the majority of RPGs in existence. Which makes it so that roleplaying is not an essential part of the RPG genre.

 

[Crni Vuk]

This is core to Fallout; in fact [afaik] the combat engine was among the earliest things developed—before theme and story was even considered.

Spoiler: Here is a video that I made of the Fallout prototype engine:

An early story premise was about time travel, and saving the world, encountering dinosaurs, and later on helping wizards, and accidentally extinguishing Humanity before it began. [no joke ]

I can understand a point of view that does not appreciate it... but it really is like not wanting to try a foreign food; or not instantaneously liking it at the first (or even fifth) taste. But like the foods, one can develop a preference for it over time.

I came to Fallout straight from Baldur's Gate—and wondered if I had made a terrible mistake in bothering with it. The exact same thing happened with another turn based game; Disciples 2—the very same doubt almost immediately. But I played it until it became familiar and I knew how to play it. Shortly afterwards I clocked in an 18 hour stint of Disciples 2—single player.

I've never played Fallout for 18 hours straight, but it's a fantastic RPG, and the combat is part of it.

Anytime someone says they don't like a game for the very reasons that I do like it... I am reminded of this clip:
(...and that I both like root beer, and that I think Garak is right. )

Spoiler

Some 'food' is poison though and should never be appreciated.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Yes. But without the stats you wouldn't have a single RPG, instead you would have an action game, or and adventure game, or any other genre. You remove the stats from RPG you have no RPG.

If you remove the stats, then you are taking away the more detailed answers about the character, one can roleplay a class without stats—or even skills, per se. A peasant cobbler can simply have the option to repair shoes, where a peasant fisherman could not—but could catch fish, and a chef could prepare meals; and a palace guard could simply be assumed to win any combat with either of them, but rely upon them to repair his shoes, and prepare his dinner.

Failure might not even be an option; or if it is... it could be a flat 20% risk of failure for all interactions in the game, by anyone. This would still allow for an RPG... because all you need for an RPG is situational character choices. Bare metal... Super Mario & Guanlet & Golden Axe have none, but Cadash does; while it's better to have options that truly reflect the choice of character, and play to their unique strengths and weaknesses.

And then we have games that allow one to roleplay and that are not RPGs, why would Football Manager not be a RPG, we literary play the role of the manager, make the character, name it, pick age and other stuff like language and nationality, we have to do the day to day activities a manager do and have to decide pretty much everything about our club. It is a perfect game to roleplay a football club manager, but it is not a roleplay.

This is "role" with the unfortunate meaning of "job", rather than the theatrical meaning of a character part/identity. As such one is not roleplaying Odysseus in situ, they are utilizing a "Tank" as one of any kind of generic unit. The Disciples and Myth series both feature characters who level up during play—if they survive; they technically have stats too, but the conversations in the games are entirely third person. The characters are in fact job/units, rather than PCs. Myth is considered an RTS, and Disciples is a —TBS; both set in their own fantasy realms.

The original word Roleplaying meant to view a situation from another's perspective—as a tool for developing empathy... IE. roleplay the puppy on the leash, and realize how it must feel to be unexpectedly yanked around by the neck. Roleplay John in the office, and consider how he would view a new-hire rising to the head of his department in mere months...by leveraging his own advice and after hours help on office projects.

—Roleplay a woman's first time out of the vault—her only home since birth, and now apart from anyone she ever knew in the world. For a natural diplomat this is an opportunity, for an awkward system's technician, this could be getting cast out into hell... That should affect whether the PC recruits Ian [for instance]; Ian is a random wasteland rogue she met in some town crash house. Who is more likely to do this, the diplomat, or the PC tech?

Because what differentiates it from the previous two games is that the main character is dependent of it's Attributes (Strength, Armor Class, Agility, Magic Points) to resist damage, deal damage, walking speed, how high it can jump, etc. While in the Ghouls & Goblins/Willow case, the characters are not dependent on any character attributes.

The character attributes are class based, and in Willow's case, the characters can be improved by player action. Willow is (,and Black-Tiger come to think of it) is not intended as an RPG, but it does offer an improvable PC with special talents. The situations play out differently (, and arguably can be more difficult) depending on which character you play.

But again I ask, what about RPGs where the player has no options or input other than movement, equipment and items, and which attack to use?
You say you "treat all RPGs" like that, but most RPGs do not offer those responses or reactions. For example, all the sub-genres I mentioned at the start of this post.
Are those not RPGs too? They don't usually allow choices or reactions at all. Even the example you gave of the game Cadash (which you said you consider it barely a RPG, but still a RPG) doesn't offer any option besides choose your premade character and control it's movement and attacks.

And you can still notice that Cadash is considered a RPG despite allowing as much roleplay as Earthworm Jim.

How so? Cadash offers conversation, and/that enable quests. EWJ does not; though it does have an escort mission.

I need to mention this again, most RPGs ever made do not allow more roleplaying than Super Mario Bros. And there are other gaming genres that allow more roleplay than the majority of RPGs in existence. Which makes it so that roleplaying is not an essential part of the RPG genre.

Want to roleplay a military/mercenary guy? Play Metal Gear games, they are good for roleplaying that role, but they are also not RPGs.
So if roleplaying is definite on what a RPG is, why are games of other genres that allow roleplaying not RPGs?

When I look at a game like Splinter Cell (and No One Lives Forever 2), it has a role, but there is no choice in what the character does; either complete the mission or do not, and incomplete == failure.
[NOLF has full stats, and inventory too, and skill use; but it's not an RPG.]

Dishonored is similar, except that there are character choices in the game... and failure does not usually mean a restart-until you get it done the right way. The distinction in RPGs [IMO] is the way the game handles/or reacts to the PCs actions, and the extent of its support for PC actions. In Arx Fatalis [for instance] there is a quest to solve the mine strike. While in a different town, there is an innocuous item for sale from one of the merchants: stock shares in the mine; they are worthless... however they become quite valuable after the strike ends. There is also a chicken in the game that if the PC casts a spell to reveal illusions, shows it to be a polymorphed mage (who can be rescued from his fate IRRC). —But Arx Fatalis is perhaps the best FPP RPG that I have played; by far more supportive & responsive to roleplaying than Splinter Cell (which never intends even to try).

A point about the older/ earliest games... Memory, storage, and graphical color/resolution did play a sever limiting factor in many of the designs, so there MUST be a sliding scale for these titles.

But how do you roleplay on games like PEDIT5, Rogue, Akalabeth: World of Doom and any game like those? They are some of the first cRPGs and they do not allow any more roleplay than Super Mario Bros.
For example, most Hack and Slash RPGs, most Dungeon Crawlers, most jRPGs, most tactical/strategy RPGs in existence do not allow more roleplaying than any other game genre. Even the first Diablo, which has rich lore doesn't allow more roleplaying than other genres.

How does Wasteland rate on this scale? Her is a fellow that I'd say is a master at roleplaying; and he's playing Wasteland:


___

This has some interesting points:

 

[Cobra Commander]

When I look at a game like Splinter Cell (and No One Lives Forever 2), it has a role, but there is no choice in what the character does;

You can choose to kill or not Lambert in the final mission of Double Agent

(But you cant carry this decision to the next game)

 

[Risewild]

If you remove the stats, then you are taking away the more detailed answers about the character, one can roleplay a class without stats—or even skills, per se. A peasant cobbler can simply have the option to repair shoes, where a peasant fisherman could not—but could catch fish, and a chef could prepare meals; and a palace guard could simply be assumed to win any combat with either of them, but rely upon them to repair his shoes, and prepare his dinner.

You keep missing the point, roleplay in RPGs is a different roleplay as the one you keep saying. I even posted the real definitions of roleplay from dictionaries in a previous post.
If you play a cobbler or a cook in a game without stats or skills, it stops being a RPG. It becomes a simulation/adventure game instead. The genre shifts right away.
That is why I keep saying that not all RPGs allow roleplay, but many other games from other genres do...

Failure might not even be an option; or if it is... it could be a flat 20% risk of failure for all interactions in the game, by anyone. This would still allow for an RPG...

No, it wouldn't allow for a RPG, like I said, it would be a simulation or adventure game depending on how the game would play.

Bare metal... Super Mario & Guanlet & Golden Axe have none, but Cadash does; while it's better to have options that truly reflect the choice of character, and play to their unique strengths and weaknesses.

But Gauntlet is a Hack and Slash RPG, specially Gauntlet Legends. So what you're saying is that a RPG does not need situational choices. Cadesh does not have situational choices either and most of the dialogue (99%) is optional (you won't even see it unless you click the button), it is game information, like "If you go left you reach this place" or "This is the gnomes village" or "to use doors press this button" and it is not relevant to beat the game in any way... Your character has no choice and never says anything back either. It offers as much roleplay as another game you mentioned, Golden Axe.
I ask again, what about those games without choices or dialogue that are RPGs. Chainmail miniature RPG for example, the first RPG game that Dungeons and Dragons took the rules from didn't have any choices or dialogue, it was just, make your character and kill every hostile thing on the board. Gauntlet Legends didn't have any dialogue or choices, you were placed into a map and had to kill all enemies and destroy the "spawners", how about games like the ones I mentioned in the previous post (PEDIT5, Rogue, Akalabeth: World of Doom), they are the first cRPGs and offer no dialogue or choices either (they were already called RPGs back then).

This is "role" with the unfortunate meaning of "job", rather than the theatrical meaning of a character part/identity.

But it still offers more actual roleplay as in theatrical meaning than many RPGs. You have to make your character, assign it an identity (age, name, nationality, etc), have to look for a job, have to decide what to do in situational choices, like if a player wants to quit, or got injured, or is having a mental breakdown, you have to choose what to say to the press and in social media when they ask you questions (which allows to flesh out your character's personality calm, passionate, angry, etc), etc. It is more roleplay than 99% of games out there. You can even decide to take a vacation and not work, quit your job and still not work. If you don't have a club, you are not working and the game still moves forward without you. So it is not just a job, it is a complex world where you're part of it and you directly affect it. If you decide not to be a part of it, it still moves on without you... It is totally possible to play Football Manager without joining a club, you are pretty much just a normal person that (if you want to) will see how games go, which transfers were made, which players got injured, etc. or just ignore all of that.

The original word Roleplaying meant to view a situation from another's perspective—as a tool for developing empathy...

I already mentioned who created the expression "roleplay" and why:

created by Viola Spolin in the late 19th century and yearly 20th century. She used it to describe a part of the mystery/crime "social games" she organized. These games followed rules, like always being in character, behave, talk and act like your character, the murderer (which was picked at random) had to follow a script like in theater plays and would also have to leave specific clues in specific places according to instructions delivered to them by the organizer.

It was called a "Theatre Game" were improvisation was encouraged, but the participants still had to follow the "be in character at all times" rule. This "be in character at all times" was the part Viola Spolin called "roleplay".

An actor that would all of a sudden improvise something his character would never do, would break those rules and be kicked out of the game or would be allowed to "take it back" and behave accordingly.

The character attributes are class based

Yes, and? 95% of RPGs use class based attributes. I don't understand what you mean by this.

and in Willow's case, the characters can be improved by player action. Willow is (,and Black-Tiger come to think of it) is not intended as an RPG, but it does offer an improvable PC with special talents. The situations play out differently (, and arguably can be more difficult) depending on which character you play.

I also don't understand what you mean by this either, plenty of game genres offer character improvement, it is not a RPG thing, it is even possible to make a RPG that does not allow character improvements at all.
Doom offers character improvement by collecting armor and weapons, many racing games offer character improvement (your customizable vehicle) in the form of better parts, some RTS offer units improvements in the form of promotions, many Manager games offer character improvements in the form of skill increases with training/practice, many platformers offer character improvement in the form of collectable skills/abilities/bonuses, bullet hell games offer plenty of character improvement in the form of upgrades and skills/abilities, and the list can go on to almost infinity.
So I can't see what you're trying to say there.

How so? Cadash offers conversation, and/that enable quests. EWJ does not; though it does have an escort mission.

Cadash does not offer conversation, it offers one sided text exposition and tutorial. The "quests" are not quests, are just "You want to use that door so you can complete the game? You have to kill this boss that has a macguffin to unlock the door".
I already mentioned before, Cadash does not offer any choices in dialogue or anything else, your character never talks, there isn't even a choice of "Yes/No" in the entire game. What it offers is "To beat the game you have to reach the end and beat the boss, but your path will be blocked by locked doors/portals and inaccessible platforms. You will have to defeat bosses to unlock those and progress". That is hardly quests and the character never has any choices. The only way of roleplayin in a game like that is the same way to roleplay in Golden Axe, where you also pick a class, and advance in the side-scrolling map defeating waves of monsters that come at you from all sides, beat the bosses and beat the game, Golden Axe even also offers exposition texts explaining what your characters achieved in the previous level and what you need to do in the next level in between each level.
They even follow the same structure in terms of story progression. Golden Axe is even more character oriented than Cadash, since in Golden Axe the main character actually speaks and also says yes to the request of it's lord. Which doesn't happen in Cadash.

Spoiler: Story Mode: Cadash vs Golden Axe

Game Start exposition/game objective:

The rescue and the End... Or is it? Plot Twist after the character beat what they thought was the last boss:

The real End:

Bonus GIF. Non Optional text:

When I look at a game like Splinter Cell (and No One Lives Forever 2), it has a role, but there is no choice in what the character does; either complete the mission or do not, and incomplete == failure.
[NOLF has full stats, and inventory too, and skill use; but it's not an RPG.]

Dishonored is similar, except that there are character choices in the game... and failure does not usually mean a restart-until you get it done the right way. The distinction in RPGs [IMO] is the way the game handles/or reacts to the PCs actions, and the extent of its support for PC actions. In Arx Fatalis [for instance] there is a quest to solve the mine strike. While in a different town, there is an innocuous item for sale from one of the merchants: stock shares in the mine; they are worthless... however they become quite valuable after the strike ends. There is also a chicken in the game that if the PC casts a spell to reveal illusions, shows it to be a polymorphed mage (who can be rescued from his fate IRRC). —But Arx Fatalis is perhaps the best FPP RPG that I have played; by far more supportive & responsive to roleplaying than Splinter Cell (which never intends even to try).

A point about the older/ earliest games... Memory, storage, and graphical color/resolution did play a sever limiting factor in many of the designs, so there MUST be a sliding scale for these titles.

First, I will address your last point. This (pardon my language) is bullshit, it is the same as when people say Fallout was turn-based and isometric because of the limitations of the hardware/software.
The thing is that back then all RPGs were like that. Yes, that is right, all RPGs were just get a character and go into a map/maps and kill every enemy, collect loot and use that loot to get better equipment. From Chainmail to Dungeons and Dragons (the original RPGs which created the RPG genre and name). Those cRPGs were not made like that because of limitations, they were made like that because RPGs were like that, they were all Hack and Slash. I already mentioned this in the previous post, but only in 1989, with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition did RPGs started to offer "roleplay", that is 15 years since the creation of RPGs where all of them were Hack and Slash, loot collectors.

Now, the first point. About Splinter Cell and No One Lives Forever. NOLF2 is not a RPG because the game needs the player's skills to be played, the "skills" in that game are not character skills as how they work in RPGs. These skills in NOLF2 do not limit your character in any way. You don't need Stealth skill to be able to hide in that game, you don't need marksman skill to be able to hit the enemy, you don't need search skill to be able to search... Etc. These skills are just improvements to everything your character do, they do not limit what your character can do, because your character already can do everything the skills affect.

Second point, the distinction in RPGs is the way the game handles/reacts to players actions and supports PC actions... I already mentioned before (probably several times by now) that the majority of RPGs do not offer PC choices/actions. You're railroaded to do this and you have no saying in it at all. Entire RPG sub-genres do this.
By that definition, those are not RPGs when they are RPGs.

If you don't want to take my word for it, then how about the word of one of the most important man in the RPG genre? Richard Garriott which started making cRPGs since 1975 (only one year after the first publication of D&D):

Diablo, great game. Loved it. For me, I use the term "RPG" for it because it is a stats game. It's a "Do I have the best armor equipment compared to the creature I'm facing?" There's not really any story for it. It's a great challenge reward cycle game. Blizzard, by the way, does the best challenge reward cycle games I've seen.

On the other hand, Thief or Ultima are role-playing games versus RPG -- which I know stands for role-playing game. When I think of a role-playing game, it is now where you are charged with playing an actual role and qualitative aspects of how you play are every bit as important as what equipment you use. That's what I find most interesting. It's a lot easier to do stories there.

Notice how he mentions that RPGs are stat games and then differentiates RPGs from role-playing games, which he says Thief is a role-playing game because the player is charged with an actual role (being a thief) and the stuff you do as the character is as important as anything else.

Even this RPG legend says that RPGs are stat games, while games in other genres can be role-playing games because of the same things that you consider a RPG.

It is what I always say RPG =/= from role-playing game. One is a gaming genre based on character Stats, the other is games on any genre based on character choices, options, actions, dialogue, etc.

How does Wasteland rate on this scale?

Wasteland is a pure RPG, everything in the game is based on your characters skills and attributes. It is one of the most expansive cRPGs ever made considering the use of characters attributes and skills.
I don't understand why you asked me that question though.

 

[Gizmojunk]

It becomes a simulation/adventure game instead.

If it's simulating within the boundaries of what the PC is limited to, there there is nothing wrong (or opposed to being an RPG) with that.

But Gauntlet is a Hack and Slash RPG,

I don't see anything RPG about Guantlet; it's scarcely different from Smash TV.

So what you're saying is that a RPG does not need situational choices.

That is the opposite of what I posted.

Cadesh does not have situational choices either and most of the dialogue (99%) is optional (you won't even see it unless you click the button)

And I see no problem with that. A PC can be antisocial, and purpose driven, or can be a voluble nuisance; or anything in between.

it is game information, like "If you go left you reach this place" or "This is the gnomes village" or "to use doors press this button" and it is not relevant to beat the game in any way...

Spoiler

I already mentioned before, Cadash does not offer any choices in dialogue or anything else, your character never talks, there isn't even a choice of "Yes/No" in the entire game.

Do they need to? Notice that the wizard bows as he leaves the widow; response is assumed, and enough... He intends to rescue her ward. This is an 80's arcade game, one takes what they can out of it, and fills in the rest.

Your character has no choice and never says anything back either. It offers as much roleplay as another game you mentioned, Golden Axe.

The choice in this case is to accept or not. Golden Axe, I don't recall any choices, and it's a linear left to right hacking & slash jaunt. The only RPG~esque bit about it is the gnome abuse camping minigame—and even that's just hitting the gnome.

I ask again, what about those games without choices or dialogue that are RPGs.

You keep asking with no reason to. What about them? They don't offer choices or dialog... are they RPGs? I wouldn't consider them so. Chainmail is a wargame; as you say, one just, kills every hostile thing on the board.

...how about games like the ones I mentioned in the previous post (PEDIT5, Rogue, Akalabeth: World of Doom), they are the first cRPGs and offer no dialogue or choices either (they were already called RPGs back then).

First, I will address your last point. This (pardon my language) is bullshit, it is the same as when people say Fallout was turn-based and isometric because of the limitations of the hardware/software.

As I said before, there is a sliding scale, and despite what you appear to believe, there WERE practical and economic limitations that influenced the designs.

**Even Fallout suffered from this during development, as Tim has mentioned that they had considered making the engine 3D, but could not get the performance numbers needed on the typical consumer desktop of the day; and so Fallout was made sprite-based—and chugs to this day because of it.​

Back to the 80's: Even a straight console text parser has a limit to what would fit on a disk... disks weren't cheap. One could make a booter (like Hobbit) have 900,000 words, and be an interactive novel, but it would require at about thirty floppies to hold the text, and who knows how many more for the game logic.
My 8086 Tandy 1000 shipped with a 20 MB hard drive drive... such a game couldn't even be installed, and would have to be run from the disks; DISK SWAPPING 30+ floppies? Yes there were technology limits.

As for Cadash... It was a arcade cabinet, where every death cost you money. It was never going to be Wasteland—even though it was released the year after it.

SSI's Gold Box games offered conversations, and party responses were abstracted to attitudes, When it wasn't Yes or No questions, you could answer as Haughty, Sly, Nice, Meek, or Abusive. Those do actually afford playing the role, by imparting to the engine your character's attitude.... and getting the consequential result. Again it's a sliding scale that attempts the same basic function as seen in The Witcher, or Mass Effect, series' or even FO4—from what I've seen in screenshots.
*Except that in SSI's games, you knew exactly what the response meant... One can't always tell in the other two games.

You have to make your character, assign it an identity (age, name, nationality, etc)...

I don't see the choice of these as integral or core to RPGs, not so long as the characters have them picked... if they are already picked, then that is the character you roleplay.

...like if a player wants to quit, or got injured, or is having a mental breakdown, you have to choose what to say to the press and in social media when they ask you questions (which allows to flesh out your character's personality calm, passionate, angry, etc), etc. It is more roleplay than 99% of games out there. You can even decide to take a vacation and not work, quit your job and still not work. If you don't have a club, you are not working and the game still moves forward without you. So it is not just a job, it is a complex world where you're part of it and you directly affect it. If you decide not to be a part of it, it still moves on without you... It is totally possible to play Football Manager without joining a club, you are pretty much just a normal person that (if you want to) will see how games go, which transfers were made, which players got injured, etc. or just ignore all of that.

I am lost on this one... I can't make heads or tails of what it means. If this is something to do with Facebook... well, I don't have a Facebook page, and have never played Facebook games.

I already mentioned who created the expression "roleplay" and why:

And I don't care about it.

That's not meant to be snappy, but I already listed the definition I meant.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/role-play
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/role-playing

When a game gives you a character identity and puts them in situations, the identity is not insignificant—even if the game itself cannot fully acknowledge it. As I said, I use the framework for what it's able to provide.

Oblivion is a terrible RPG (if you can call it one); because it gives you an anonymous character with no past, no acquaintances, no (class) skills, and no apparent means of having survived to adulthood—you are assigned an adult infant layabout. It's like they fell out of a hole in the sky...

Spoiler

...and it does this with none of the limitations from previous decades; hence why the sliding scale does not apply.

Compare that to the Planescape or the Witcher. Both games assign a character with a defined past, with past acquaintances, past deeds, developed skills (of the Fighter class, and who is not inept)—but still with room for improvement. Choices in those games matter to the outcome, and to the path taken. Even in Baldur's Gate, the PC is known to their neighbors, has friends, and an educated parent. They grew up in a library.

Choices in Oblivion are tinsel on top of the game world simulation; Kvatch burns forever, until the PC deigns to visit—and even after that, until solved... They can leave for months, and return to the still raging inferno. In Oblivion the character never improves, because the relative skill of everyone else scales up with any perceived progress.... the PC starts getting mugged by bandits who are wearing a fortune in equipment, and who fight like arena champions. So... No role, effectively no choices, zero commitments, and no practical improvement.
Oblivion is an exercise in time wasting.

Now look back to 'Curse of the Azure Bonds'. The PC's share a common dilemma, they are each professionals who were abducted, and enslaved with magical tattoos—a serviceable enough past. They improve through the game, they interact with NPCs, and make their feelings known. One by one they take down their oppressive masters; removing the associated tattoo from each of the defeated foes. This game runs on an 8088 processor in less than a megabyte of RAM, and it's a better roleplaying game than Oblivion.

Yes, and? 95% of RPGs use class based attributes. I don't understand what you mean by this.

I don't understand why that is. In Willow, the player gets to choose between two characters when they take on the new sections, and each character has their own unique abilities. Madmartigan is the Fighter, Willow is the mage. (It's also not an RPG, it's a platformer, just like 'Ghosts and Goblins'—and Cadash, though Cadash has RPG-like elements.)

I also don't understand what you mean by this either, plenty of game genres offer character improvement, it is not a RPG thing, it is even possible to make a RPG that does not allow character improvements at all.

Simply a statement in context; that they had skills, (class skills).

The thing is that back then all RPGs were like that. Yes, that is right, all RPGs were just get a character and go into a map/maps and kill every enemy, collect loot and use that loot to get better equipment.

And again [with cRPGs]... It is the sliding scale that I mentioned. One had to limit the scope.

NOLF2 is not a RPG because the game needs the player's skills to be played, the "skills" in that game are not character skills as how they work in RPGs. These skills in NOLF2 do not limit your character in any way. You don't need Stealth skill to be able to hide in that game, you don't need marksman skill to be able to hit the enemy, you don't need search skill to be able to search... Etc. These skills are just improvements to everything your character do, they do not limit what your character can do, because your character already can do everything the skills affect.

So here you are agreeing with me that NOLF2 is not an RPG, but for reasons that I'd not disqualify it. The skills DO affect and limit the character. The searching skill (for instance) does take longer when the she is not as proficient.. that can affect the encounters— and it has a parallel with percentage based RPG skills systems that can fail, and require additional time. The novice thief cannot reliably pick the door lock before the guard will return, but the expert thief [usually] can.

Other NOLF2 skills of note:

• Gadgets: Improving this skill makes it faster to bypass
  obstacles, thus Cate is less likely to be seen by passing
  enemies.
  • That's a skill.
• Marksmanship: The higher this skill gets, the lower
  weapon perturb will be. This means that shots will hit the
  center of the crosshairs more often than before.
  • This is a weapon proficiency, same as Fallout
    
• Stamina: When increased, Cate’s maximum health will
  increase and she will gain more health from first-aid kits.
  Also, her movements will be less hindered by certain types
  of damage, and some damage will have less of an effect.
  • This is a stat that increases hitpoints

Second point, the distinction in RPGs is the way the game handles/reacts to players actions and supports PC actions... I already mentioned before (probably several times by now) that the majority of RPGs do not offer PC choices/actions. You're railroaded to do this and you have no saying in it at all. Entire RPG sub-genres do this.
By that definition, those are not RPGs when they are RPGs.

If you don't want to take my word for it, then how about the word of one of the most important man in the RPG genre? Richard Garriott which started making cRPGs since 1975 (only one year after the first publication of D&D):

I don't care about Garriot, I never liked his games. I respect his accomplishments as a developer.

There are stat games that are not RPGs, and there are RPGs that are not stat-games; (for example: 'Unrest'). What matters to me is whether the game intends for the player to choose differently based on the character's perspective and unique aspects. A game like NOLF does not, a game like Cadash actually does (after a fashion), because the man who grew up to become the fighter does not react the same was as the man who grew up to become the wizard—or the woman who became the priest; granted it's more apparent in multiplayer where the fighter runs toward combat, while the wizard meddles with spells... I am not even sure if you can win playing a solo priest.

 

[SquidWard]

There are stat games that are not RPGs, and there are RPGs that are not stat-games; (for example: 'Unrest'). What matters to me is whether the game intends for the player to choose differently based on the character's perspective and unique aspects.

While I mostly agree with Risewild I find this statement to be at least somewhat fair.

You can look for different things in RPGs and have different preferences, and you can even enjoy games that aren't fully RPGs in a manner that you enjoy RPGs. I'd say it's a very hard thing to define but Risewild's explanations here and other places I've seen them, usually are the most logical I've seen or at least in my opinion. What differentiates RPGs, simply put, is being defined by stats and being limited by those stats.

What is a RPG is a bigger question than most other video game genres. You can ask why is DOOM a shooter but X adventure game not? And the answers are usually simple and universally agreed.

My end message is mostly, if you're playing video games, play the ones you like. Genres to me, are just a broader guideline to help us identify how the art is portrayed/designed kinda deal. I don't worry too much about the label of the piece but rather how well done the piece is.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

"I'm going to deprive myself of perfectly good gaming experiences based on my own self-cultivated lack of adaptability and strict adherence to my gaming 'comfort zone', and there's nothing you can do to stop me!"

...Go you?

 

[stjohn]

I mean, he did say "as childish as that may sound." at the end of his post, plus its his choice.
No need to be an ass about it.

 

[Risewild]

If it's simulating within the boundaries of what the PC is limited to, there there is nothing wrong (or opposed to being an RPG) with that.

Yes there is. You are now saying that the RPG genre is superior to any other genre, because any adventure or simulation has to be a RPG is the game's PC can behave and affect the world in that way. While in fact those games only become RPGs once the characters have stats and use those to interact with the world.

I don't see anything RPG about Guantlet; it's scarcely different from Smash TV.

It doesn't really matter how you see a genre or not, it doesn't magically makes it not be that. I would love to have certain games not be RPG, but they still are, no matter my opinion. You are excluding the vast majority of games in a genre that has existed for more than 40 years just because they don't have what you enjoy in the same genre...

That is the opposite of what I posted.

I know it is the opposite, but it is also what you said. You said that Gauntlet games are not RPGs and that RPGs need to be that specific way. But Gauntlet games are RPGs.
This is not me saying they are RPGs, they have been classified like Hack and Slash RPGs since the start (1985).

And I see no problem with that. A PC can be antisocial, and purpose driven, or can be a voluble nuisance; or anything in between.

So how can Cadash be a RPG but Golden Axe is not? Again, this is not my definition, these games have been categorized like that since they were first made. And back then there wasn't this confusion on what is or not a RPG.

That is not a quest, that is what I meant by the "Go here, defeat the boss and get the macguffin to continue your game", you have no choice

Do they need to? Notice that the wizard bows as he leaves the widow; response is assumed, and enough... He intends to rescue her ward. This is an 80's arcade game, one takes what they can out of it, and fills in the rest.

So, how does one kneeling on the floor (it is not a bow) means a yes? Why would a wizard kneel to an old woman to say yes? Doesn't really make sense.
Also you say that for you a RPG needs choice, but again, there is no choice in that situation, your character is forced to do that, he is forced to kill that boss so he can continue the game, just like you have to defeat any boss in Golden Axe so you can continue the game. If that make Cadash a RPG, then Golden Axe also has to be a RPG since they play pretty much the same (pick a character, have the objective of your mission explained at the start, defeat the bosses so you can continue, beat the last boss but it is not the real last boss so the people you saved asked you to defeat the real last boss, beat the last boss and win the game, seeing a short dialogue explaining what the future holds for your character) the only major differences are that Cadash uses platforms and the characters and enemies rely on their attributes for combat.

The choice in this case is to accept or not. Golden Axe, I don't recall any choices, and it's a linear left to right hacking & slash jaunt. The only RPG~esque bit about it is the gnome abuse camping minigame—and even that's just hitting the gnome.

What choice? Again, you can't choose anything in Cadash, your character is forced to accept to defeat all the bosses so he can get the macguffins to open the path to continue the game, there is not one instance where you can decide what your character accepts or not. It is literally linear, not even one choice in the entire game besides picking which character to play with.

You keep asking with no reason to. What about them? They don't offer choices or dialog... are they RPGs? I wouldn't consider them so. Chainmail is a wargame; as you say, one just, kills every hostile thing on the board.

And yet they are RPGs. They are what the genre and name RPG was created for. Are you telling me that the creators of the genre don't know what the genre is?
This the difference between us. You say RPG is what you want it to be, I say RPG is what the creators of the genre say it is. One is opinion, the other is written in history.

Even Fallout suffered from this during development, as Tim has mentioned that they had considered making the engine 3D, but could not get the performance numbers needed on the typical consumer desktop of the day; and so Fallout was made sprite-based—and chugs to this day because of it.

I will need a source on that, since I can't find anything like that. Although, I didn't say that Fallout wasn't to be 3D or not, I mentioned isometric and turn based. Which is what it was always planned. Since they wanted to reproduce GURPS P&P on the computer. The best way is to have it isometric, because it makes it look like a tabletop without being flat, and the turn-based combat because GURPS combat was turn based. I bet even if they had made it 3D, it would still be Isometric (Trimetric actually).

SSI's Gold Box games offered conversations, and party responses were abstracted to attitudes, When it wasn't Yes or No questions, you could answer as Haughty, Sly, Nice, Meek, or Abusive. Those do actually afford playing the role, by imparting to the engine your character's attitude.... and getting the consequential result. Again it's a sliding scale that attempts the same basic function as seen in The Witcher, or Mass Effect, series' or even FO4—from what I've seen in screenshots.
*Except that in SSI's games, you knew exactly what the response meant... One can't always tell in the other two games.

Gold Box games were like that, yes, and? Gold Box games were made at the end of the 80's and beginning of the 90's and were using Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition rules. I had already mentioned it before that the 2nd edition was when RPGs started to have roleplay in them. So of course they would try to add some to the games. Because that was what Dungeons and Dragons was back then. But you will still notice that the majority of even Golden Box games are dungeon Crawlers that focus on combat and the stats for the majority of the game.
Before AD&D 2E all RPGs in existence didn't allow roleplay, that is more than 15 years of people knowing what RPGs were, and using the RPG name to define the genre before it actually allowed roleplaying.

I don't see the choice of these as integral or core to RPGs, not so long as the characters have them picked... if they are already picked, then that is the character you roleplay.

But those things are only a part of what I wrote, there is all the other parts like lots and lots of decisions, which answer you pick during press conferences, which attitude you have toward your players and if you talk to them calmly, passionately, angry, disappointed, etc. You can definitely form a personality for your character in those games. The last Football manager I player years ago even allowed you to set nicknames for players and other managers, and would also allow to encourage and befriend other managers (which would then say nice stuff about our character and be encouraging if we were having bad results), or become hated by them, which would then result in them hurling insults at us and say demeaning stuff about us in press conferences and social media. These things would then influence our club and players in different ways depending on each player personality and also if they liked us or not.
You can even send your assistant to the press conference instead of you, in case you're camera shy or any other reason.
Like I said, these type of sports managers allow way more roleplay than 95% of all the RPGs out there.

I am lost on this one... I can't make heads or tails of what it means. If this is something to do with Facebook... well, I don't have a Facebook page, and have never played Facebook games.

No, that has nothing to do with facebook. The games have a fake social media simulation, where ingame created (they are not real people, they are created by the game) fans, players, sport journalists, sport bloggers, managers, etc can send messages and stuff like that. Sport Manager games are really advanced these days (I say these but last time I played a Football Manager was several years ago). These messages can affect players, managers, staff and club supporters in different ways depending on their personality and other factors.

And I don't care about it.

That's not meant to be snappy, but I already listed the definition I meant.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/role-play
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/role-playing

And yet, in all of those definitions from your links, there is not one that fits with your definition of roleplaying in a game...

Compare that to the Planescape or the Witcher. Both games assign a character with a defined past, with past acquaintances, past deeds, developed skills (of the Fighter class, and who is not inept)—but still with room for improvement. Choices in those games matter to the outcome, and to the path taken. Even in Baldur's Gate, the PC is known to their neighbors, has friends, and an educated parent. They grew up in a library.

Choices in Oblivion are tinsel on top of the game world simulation; Kvatch burns forever, until the PC deigns to visit—and even after that, until solved... They can leave for months, and return to the still raging inferno. In Oblivion the character never improves, because the relative skill of everyone else scales up with any perceived progress.... the PC starts getting mugged by bandits who are wearing a fortune in equipment, and who fight like arena champions. So... No role, effectively no choices, zero commitments, and no practical improvement.
Oblivion is an exercise in time wasting.

Now look back to 'Curse of the Azure Bonds'. The PC's share a common dilemma, they are each professionals who were abducted, and enslaved with magical tattoos—a serviceable enough past. They improve through the game, they interact with NPCs, and make their feelings known. One by one they take down their oppressive masters; removing the associated tattoo from each of the defeated foes. This game runs on an 8088 processor in less than a megabyte of RAM, and it's a better roleplaying game than Oblivion.

And yet we have plenty RPGs without character backgrounds or any choice, like I keep saying over and over. So they are not real RPGs then, they have no genre apparently?
Having choices and reactivity to what your character does are things that enrich the genre, they are not things that define the genre... The genre existed long before those things were included on the games (more than 15 years, like I mentioned a few times), the genre was already called RPG in 1975.

I don't understand why that is. In Willow, the player gets to choose between two characters when they take on the new sections, and each character has their own unique abilities. Madmartigan is the Fighter, Willow is the mage. (It's also not an RPG, it's a platformer, just like 'Ghosts and Goblins'—and Cadash, though Cadash has RPG-like elements.)

Yes, they have abilities, but once again you're confusing abilities with skills and attributes. The game I talked a lot before, Golden Axe also has different character to pick, each with different abilities and it is not a RPG, so is many games from many genres out there.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say with this example.

Simply a statement in context; that they had skills, (class skills).

But they don't add skills, they add abilities. Just like I just said. Plenty of games in plenty of different genres add abilities for their characters. For example, the old game called The Lost Vikings, each of the vikings have different abilities and you have to overcome puzzles and obstacles by using their unique abilities, it is definitely not a RPG.

And again [with cRPGs]... It is the sliding scale that I mentioned. One had to limit the scope.

Which doesn't make sense, since before the first cRPG appeared, there were already text adventure games that allowed a lot of interaction. So if people wanted that type of things in their cRPG, they would have made it possible.
Also, again I say, the first cRPGs were all Hack and Slash because that was what RPGs were back then. Since the cRPGs were based on the tabletop RPGs, of course they would be Hack and Slash too.

So here you are agreeing with me that NOLF2 is not an RPG, but for reasons that I'd not disqualify it. The skills DO affect and limit the character. The searching skill (for instance) does take longer when the she is not as proficient.. that can affect the encounters— and it has a parallel with percentage based RPG skills systems that can fail, and require additional time. The novice thief cannot reliably pick the door lock before the guard will return, but the expert thief [usually] can.

Other NOLF2 skills of note:

• Gadgets: Improving this skill makes it faster to bypass
  obstacles, thus Cate is less likely to be seen by passing
  enemies.
  • That's a skill.
• Marksmanship: The higher this skill gets, the lower
  weapon perturb will be. This means that shots will hit the
  center of the crosshairs more often than before.
  • This is a weapon proficiency, same as Fallout
• Stamina: When increased, Cate’s maximum health will
  increase and she will gain more health from first-aid kits.
  Also, her movements will be less hindered by certain types
  of damage, and some damage will have less of an effect.
  • This is a stat that increases hitpoints

Notice how the skill do not limit what a character can do, which is what I said from the begining. The character already can do all the things the skills affect, the only thing skills affect speed up actions or have an increased bonus on healing.
There is no limitations there, if you don't invest in a skill, you can still do the action.
Now go and play D&D and try to picklocks without knowing the lockpicking skill for example, you can't even attempt to pick the lock, go play Fallout and attempt to do the same without investing in the skill, you will fail every time and probably jam the lock too, go play Daggerfall and the same will happen, Shadowrun it's the same, etc. That is what limiting the character by skills means.

I don't care about Garriot, I never liked his games. I respect his accomplishments as a developer.

And yet, he created the cRPG genre . You don't care what the creator of a genre has to say about what that same genre is because you don't like his games...

There are stat games that are not RPGs, and there are RPGs that are not stat-games; (for example: 'Unrest').

I'm sorry, but Unrest does have Attributes. All your dialogue choices are influenced by three attributes Fear, Friendship and Respect. These are the Attributes that will influence if you succeed on the dialogue choices you make with each NPC in the entire game. The characters also have Traits which influences (restricts or allows) world/people/dialogue interactions. It perfectly fits the RPG definition I have been saying in here.

a game like Cadash actually does (after a fashion), because the man who grew up to become the fighter does not react the same was as the man who grew up to become the wizard—or the woman who became the priest; granted it's more apparent in multiplayer where the fighter runs toward combat, while the wizard meddles with spells... I am not even sure if you can win playing a solo priest.

Then, like I said a few times already. Golden Axe by this definition is also a RPG.

I find myself repeating the same things in different ways over and over. And I also noticed that this thread is not really about what a RPG is or not, so I don't want to clog it with my usual wall of text (I already did to be honest...).
I guess if my words are still not convincing, then I have to give up, because I don't think I will be able to explain better in the future either.

To everyone else, sorry about clogging this thread .

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

I mean, he did say "as childish as that may sound." at the end of his post, plus its his choice.
No need to be an ass about it.

Let me ask you something.

If you had an opinion like the OP's (which I think I pretty accurately distilled), do you think it would be terribly wise to go on a forum devoted HEAVILY to not just the Fallout franchise in particular but to the classic Fallouts ESPECIALLY and make that post?

Why does OP think we really give that much of a damn? I certainly don't. I emphasized that in my post. That was the POINT of my post. If someone comes up to me and yells something like "I'm never eating chocolate again and you can't make me" the first thing I'm going to say is "Quit yelling in my face" and the second is "I don't give a fuck".

 

[stjohn]

He might have wanted to stir up conversation, which in that case he did.
And he probably joined to have a good time with people who liked the same franchise, I know I did.
Besides, looking at the replies it seems some people cared enough about this.

Anyway I don't want to start an arguement or worse, a flame war so i'll probably go back to lurking

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

He might have wanted to stir up conversation, which in that case he did.

He responded once after his initial post to say "Will do" to someone else recommending VtmB

Now, I don't KNOW if his intention was to start a discussion about things he might like instead of Fallout 1/2 , but if it was, he certainly didn't make that very clear in his first post.

 

[Crni Vuk]

As long he doesn't insult anyone, he can always come here, shit all over the chess board and declare him self a winner.

This forum allows for that sort of behaviour. And I think that's great.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

As long he doesn't insult anyone, he can always come here, shit all over the chess board and declare him self a winner.

This forum allows for that sort of behaviour. And I think that's great.

Probably because that's like 99 percent of what you tend to do, but I digress.

 

[SquidWard]

I like how this thread is two subjects now
1. What is a RPG?
2. Cliffy McEdgeface being himself.