Why I will likely never play the original Fallouts

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

I like how this thread is two subjects now
1. What is a RPG?

Which is a great way to make a thread devolve into flamewar

2. Cliffy McEdgeface being himself.

Hey I'm just reminding y'all that throwing pearls before swine just makes you look dumb

 

[Gizmojunk]

What differentiates RPGs, simply put, is being defined by stats and being limited by those stats.

This is certainly my own preference as well. RPGs at their core, are essentially about evaluating when to say No; and the stats are usually what influences it, or decides it outright.

In the simpler games mentioned above, there is usually no option to say No to; unlike with Oblivion, where it [almost?] never says No, and at most it says Not Yet. As we know, in Oblivion even the dedicated acrobat can become the leader of the Mage's guild.
(They shouldn't want or allow that in their guild; it should be seen as a risible affront to their academic ego.)

 

[Daniel "Dan" Acerbi Rocha]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

You're very wrong though.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

In the simpler games mentioned above, there is usually no option to say No to; unlike with Oblivion, where it [almost?] never says No, and at most it says Not Yet. As we know, in Oblivion even the dedicated acrobat can become the leader of the Mage's guild.
(They shouldn't want or allow that in their guild; it should be seen as a risible affront to their academic ego.)

Dude I'll do you one better

You can be a dedicated melee character in Skyrim and still complete the entire College of Winterhold questline, get the Staff of Magnus, as well as complete the entire Thieves' Guild questline, get the Nightingale items, complete the Dark Brotherhood quests, etc. What's better is that you are NEVER EVER forced to choose between Imperials or Stormcloaks, the only exclusive questgiving factions in game. Choices and consequences in Elder Scrolls games might as well not even fucking exist - the entire game can be completed without ever making a single meaningful choice.

 

[Gizmojunk]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

You're very wrong though.

Do you mean the statement directly above yours? (or the earlier posts)
And if not the earlier ones, then—how so?

Spoiler: Risewild

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...

Language and definitions change a lot in 40 years; and there were plain mistakes made along the way. Didn't the Action-RPG genre pop into existence because the focus of some of the games were becoming so different as to almost be disingenuous? Fallout and Diablo were both labeled RPGs at the time, but the respective fans of each game will not find their anticipated experience in the other title. trusting the RPG lable on the box.



Even now, can we compare Wizard's Crown to Witcher 2?—and describe them with the same term?

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.

No... that's what SSI was back then. They were a wargame company [Their name is an acronym]. It was a wonderful [and bold] coup for them to get the D&D license. They made the games they loved to make... they just officially skinned it with D&D.

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.

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?

Because that's why I made him bow; (kneel; which is what that the game supports).

You're missing the point if want it to be on the level of Fallout. The wizard (Woz) entered the home, and they (presumably) had a conversation; she probably gave him tea, and told him of the plight of her lost ward. The player sees a text box with the bare gist of it. When he left, he turned and gestured to the woman reassuringly, and off he went—at her bequest.

I say it's a quest, because she asks him to do it. The player doesn't ever have to enter the house, or even speak to the old woman. In Oblivion there is a guy who wants you to catch him a fish.

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,

I don't think so. If he rescues her, he gets a reward, but AFAIK he can ignore her plight, and manage on without the magic trinket—though it may cost the player more money.
But even that is not the point. RPGs seem best when there are choice for the PC to prove his quality [to snatch a line from Faramir], and they seem not really to be RPGs when the player is not expected to care about the character's personality.

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

Yes they do—why else would I have listed them? (No seriously...Why would anyone offer a definition that they didn't believe illustrated their point or intent?)

When I have played Fallout, with some of the PCs that have Dogmeat along, and if the pooch gets brutally attacked or killed, some have taken it so personally, that they would immediately stop, and expend even multiple turns to reach the one responsible, and (if non-animal) attempt to hit them in the groin with a sledgehammer [as personal payback]. For them, nobody kills their dog and gets away with it. And they did it so that it would be done with a hammer—as their gun was too good for them, and lacked meaning.

This allows the game to cement a memory that becomes part of the recalling the character. When I played Cadash, I remember that Woz felt sorry for the old woman, and decided to put his immediate affairs on hold to help her out. It matters not that the player may find the monster & captive anyway—or even that she still gives him the reward (with a different response than had he not been sent by the old woman).
___

Yes, they have abilities, but once again you're confusing abilities with skills and attributes. [/quote]But I see it as the opposite, where the abilities are presumably learned combat skills... It's not like as with a snake's bite being poison—that's an ability. When a person's fist is lethal, that's a learned skill; (and so it is with the voice, for a fantasy mage).

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.

Great game. Those three are their own characters, and what characters they are too. All that's there for the player is to get the three of them home alive.

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...

No you won't. It might take a bit longer—just like with NOLF2; at best it might not. At worst you might jam the lock. This is because all Fallout characters have the lock pick skill. For your purpose, Gothic 2 is the better example; and it's what so impressed me about it. When you try to pick a lock without being trained in the task, he scoffs aloud that he knows nothing of locks.

True Story: When I was six years old, we had a pool in our apartment complex. The pool supply closet was locked with a conventional combination padlock; it was on a hasp well above my head. To reach it I had to stand with my back to it, with my arm as high as I could manage on tip toes, leaning back against the door. It was locked. I stood there randomly spinning the dial and pulling on it...until it was not locked. In Fallout, there is a minimum competency for skills, and it is totally possible to pick a lock without really knowing what you are doing... dials or tumblers—unless it's a REALLY good lock. The determining factor is time.

In Fallout, if you fail, you expend time, and perhaps try again. In NOLF 2, if Cate is a novice it takes longer to open the lock. The difference is that NOLF 2 uses an abstraction of the attempts, where as Fallout uses individual attempts, with individual failures. This is not to say that NOLF 2 is an RPG too—it's not; but in practice these systems play out the same... It takes longer than it would if they were an expert.

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.

Those are not attributes, they are skills. They define the character's behavior, but they are not necessarily accurate, the behavior can be faked for diplomacy, or deceit, equally instead of their true beliefs. Stats don't exist in the game, just these skills, and the earned traits. There is no measure of the character's limits, how much they can carry, how fast can they run, whether their appearance or chutzpah can turn the tide on a bad (or a good) situation. In Unrest you roleplay a segment of several assigned character's daily lives with no stats.

It perfectly fits the RPG definition I have been saying in here.

Me too.

 

[Daniel "Dan" Acerbi Rocha]

I mean the OP.

Do you mean the statement directly above yours? (or the earlier posts)
And if not the earlier ones, then—how so?

Spoiler: Risewild

Language and definitions change a lot in 40 years; and there were plain mistakes made along the way. Didn't the Action-RPG genre pop into existence because the focus of some of the games were becoming so different as to almost be disingenuous? Fallout and Diablo were both labeled RPGs at the time, but the respective fans of each game will not find their anticipated experience in the other title. trusting the RPG lable on the box.

View attachment 11097

Even now, can we compare Wizard's Crown to Witcher 2?—and describe them with the same term?

No... that's what SSI was back then. They were a wargame company [Their name is an acronym]. It was a wonderful [and bold] coup for them to get the D&D license. They made the games they loved to make... they just officially skinned it with D&D.

Because that's why I made him bow; (kneel; which is what that the game supports).

You're missing the point if want it to be on the level of Fallout. The wizard (Woz) entered the home, and they (presumably) had a conversation; she probably gave him tea, and told him of the plight of her lost ward. The player sees a text box with the bare gist of it. When he left, he turned and gestured to the woman reassuringly, and off he went—at her bequest.

I say it's a quest, because she asks him to do it. The player doesn't ever have to enter the house, or even speak to the old woman. In Oblivion there is a guy who wants you to catch him a fish.

I don't think so. If he rescues her, he gets a reward, but AFAIK he can ignore her plight, and manage on without the magic trinket—though it may cost the player more money.
But even that is not the point. RPGs seem best when there are choice for the PC to prove his quality [to snatch a line from Faramir], and they seem not really to be RPGs when the player is not expected to care about the character's personality.


Yes they do—why else would I have listed them? (No seriously...Why would anyone offer a definition that they didn't believe illustrated their point or intent?)

When I have played Fallout, with some of the PCs that have Dogmeat along, and if the pooch gets brutally attacked or killed, some have taken it so personally, that they would immediately stop, and expend even multiple turns to reach the one responsible, and (if non-animal) attempt to hit them in the groin with a sledgehammer [as personal payback]. For them, nobody kills their dog and gets away with it. And they did it so that it would be done with a hammer—as their gun was too good for them, and lacked meaning.

This allows the game to cement a memory that becomes part of the recalling the character. When I played Cadash, I remember that Woz felt sorry for the old woman, and decided to put his immediate affairs on hold to help her out. It matters not that the player may find the monster & captive anyway—or even that she still gives him the reward (with a different response than had he not been sent by the old woman).
___

Yes, they have abilities, but once again you're confusing abilities with skills and attributes.

Spoiler: Risewild

But I see it as the opposite, where the abilities are presumably learned combat skills... It's not like as with a snake's bite being poison—that's an ability. When a person's fist is lethal, that's a learned skill; (and so it is with the voice, for a fantasy mage).

Great game. Those three are their own characters, and what characters they are too. All that's there for the player is to get the three of them home alive.

No you won't. It might take a bit longer—just like with NOLF2; at best it might not. At worst you might jam the lock. This is because all Fallout characters have the lock pick skill. For your purpose, Gothic 2 is the better example; and it's what so impressed me about it. When you try to pick a lock without being trained in the task, he scoffs aloud that he knows nothing of locks.

True Story: When I was six years old, we had a pool in our apartment complex. The pool supply closet was locked with a conventional combination padlock; it was on a hasp well above my head. To reach it I had to stand with my back to it, with my arm as high as I could manage on tip toes, leaning back against the door. It was locked. I stood there randomly spinning the dial and pulling on it...until it was not locked. In Fallout, there is a minimum competency for skills, and it is totally possible to pick a lock without really knowing what you are doing... dials or tumblers—unless it's a REALLY good lock. The determining factor is time.

In Fallout, if you fail, you expend time, and perhaps try again. In NOLF 2, if Cate is a novice it takes longer to open the lock. The difference is that NOLF 2 uses an abstraction of the attempts, where as Fallout uses individual attempts, with individual failures. This is not to say that NOLF 2 is an RPG too—it's not; but in practice these systems play out the same... It takes longer than it would if they were an expert.

Those are not attributes, they are skills. They define the character's behavior, but they are not necessarily accurate, the behavior can be faked for diplomacy, or deceit, equally instead of their true beliefs. Stats don't exist in the game, just these skills, and the earned traits. There is no measure of the character's limits, how much they can carry, how fast can they run, whether their appearance or chutzpah can turn the tide on a bad (or a good) situation. In Unrest you roleplay a segment of several assigned character's daily lives with no stats.

Me too.

[/QUOTE]

 

[NMLevesque]

I never roleplay in any game

You're limiting the notion of roleplaying here. D&D style imagination play with character stats isn't the end all be all of roleplaying. Videogame architecture can achieve the same things, such as verbally indicating what your character doing, through the interactivity of the software. The same types of choices and engagement in the story takes place. That's why RPGs can be boardgames, LARPing, pen and paper games, and videogames.

RPGs did not require or offer any tools to roleplay until the late 80's and early 90's (see below)

None were needed. You still need to roleplay in order for early pen and paper/board RPGs, it was just done without electronics to facilitate the experience. It was carried out verbally. The specific mechanics don't matter outside of the context of what experience they create. Build systems can be and RPG mechanic. They aren't always.

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

The point of what I said was for you to elaborate on how games that don't require roleplaying are still RPGs. Which your wall of text didn't really illustrate. I wasn't questioning if hack and slash games can be RPGs. I was asking 'how is game X an RPG and how does it not allow roleplaying?'

acting is acting, it is not rolepay. That is why actors are called actors and not roleplayers.

Akin does not mean 'it's the same thing'. It was an analogy.

It was called a "Theatre Game" were improvisation was encouraged

Which means that they were doing improv, not acting out a play...which was my point to begin with...

...Theatre Games are not called roleplaying games.

...so you bring up a theatre game as the origin of roleplaying to explain what it really means...and your example is also a game...but it's not a roleplaying game, even though it's basically just LARPing. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. A has to equal A. That's logic.

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.

1. (intransitive) To act out a fantasy, especially with a group.
2. (transitive) To act as a character as part of a fantasy, especially with a group

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roleplay

"Role play is the act of imitating the character and behaviour of someone who is different from yourself, for example as a training exercise."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/role-play

an activity in which you pretend to be someone else, especially in order to learn new skills or attitudes
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/role-play

There are thousands of games that allow that and they are not RPGs.

I said they require narrative choices about your character. I didn't define roleplaying as merely doing so.

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"

There isn't any roleplaying game where you can literally do anything...that your options are limited does not mean that you aren't roleplaying. For goodness sake, you just said it was about rules!

You remove the stats from RPG you have no RPG.

That's like saying if you remove the original mechanics used in FPS games that you don't have an FPS. Mechanics evolve. So long as they accomplish roleplaying then it is a completely valid sentence to say that it is a roleplaying game. There is no other sensible definition for RPG. Just because the original RPGs accomplished it one way, does not mean that is the only way.

It doesn't really matter how you see a genre or not, it doesn't magically makes it not be that.

It's possible for players to get it wrong. It's possible for a studio/developer to get it wrong. It's possible for critics and anyone else to get it wrong. Sometimes games have been mislabeled. Language is fluid, but logic is not.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Akin does not mean 'it's the same thing'. It was an analogy.

It's possible for players to get it wrong. It's possible for a studio/developer to get it wrong. It's possible for critics and anyone else to get it wrong. Sometimes games have been mislabeled. Language is fluid, but logic is not.

___
Aside: As I recall, there were (at least one) professional reviewers that mistook FO3 for being set in the 1950's. Talk about getting it wrong.

 

[Risewild]

I had said I wouldn't reply anymore, because I keep repeating myself and don't like to clog and derrail threads, but a wild NMLevesque appeared and it would be rude to reply to him while not reply to you too.
So here I go and waste my time again saying stuff that will not change your mind .

Language and definitions change a lot in 40 years; and there were plain mistakes made along the way. Didn't the Action-RPG genre pop into existence because the focus of some of the games were becoming so different as to almost be disingenuous? Fallout and Diablo were both labeled RPGs at the time, but the respective fans of each game will not find their anticipated experience in the other title. trusting the RPG lable on the box.

Nope, way before Diablo was released Action RPGs already existed, the genre was called "Real-Time RPG" since the 70's, shortened later to Action RPG because it was shorter, easier to say and sounded better (people are more interested is something with the name Action than Real-Time). It is still the same sub-genre only renamed to be easier and more atractive to use. Notice how even with the change of the name, they still kept the RPG in the name.

Even now, can we compare Wizard's Crown to Witcher 2?—and describe them with the same term?

Yes we can, they are both RPGs (maybe... I don't know much about The Witcher games besides the first one). And that is why we have sub-genres. No one will doubt they are both RPGs (I am assuming the Witcher 2 is a RPG in here). But then if they want to be comparing them, they will be comparing sub-genres instead of games. I bet most people will comment how the differences between both games are mostly the differences between the sub-genres.
Remember, no game is "just" a RPG. RPG is "the" large and general genre. Just like most genres out there for pretty much everything (games, cinema, music, literature, etc.). A game that is a RPG will belong to a sub-genre, whether it likes it or not, same with other gaming genres, a Strategy game is not "just" a Strategy game, it will be a RTS (real time), a 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate), GSW (grand strategy wargame). There is no game that is just a "Strategy" game.

No... that's what SSI was back then. They were a wargame company [Their name is an acronym]. It was a wonderful [and bold] coup for them to get the D&D license. They made the games they loved to make... they just officially skinned it with D&D.

This doesn't disprove anything I said though. Dungeons and Dragons was pretty much a wargame, specially since it even used Chainmail as rules and Chainmail was a Wargame ruleset, but Chainmail was also the first RPG ruleset because it went into detail on how to make solo characters and how they could fight eachother. This was what Dungeons and Dragons was. I said it over and over already, I even posted the official original D&D character sheet and even described how even Charisma was only used to keep unusual followers loyal during combat... Please read my posts more carefully, they usually address your newer points already.

Because that's why I made him bow; (kneel; which is what that the game supports).

You're missing the point if want it to be on the level of Fallout. The wizard (Woz) entered the home, and they (presumably) had a conversation; she probably gave him tea, and told him of the plight of her lost ward. The player sees a text box with the bare gist of it. When he left, he turned and gestured to the woman reassuringly, and off he went—at her bequest.

I say it's a quest, because she asks him to do it. The player doesn't ever have to enter the house, or even speak to the old woman. In Oblivion there is a guy who wants you to catch him a fish.

So, why aren't many other games that offer the same thing as that also RPGs and why are there so many RPGs that don't even offer those things? You're using a tiny "feature" that only a tiny amount of RPGs offer and that plenty other game genres offer tons to define the RPG genre.
You're using imagination to turn something in a game that wasn't supposed/designed to be used that way to allow you to "roleplay". That wasn't the intention of the kneeling system, it is there to attack low enemies.
Again I say this (repeating myself over and over, I need to learn not to do it), using imagination to "roleplay" you're a character in the game is possible on +90% of games on every genre. And you use this as a defining factor for a specific genre.
About the "it's a quest because she asks you to", you also said you don't even have to enter the house and talk to her, the result will be the same, you are forced to encounter that boss, kill it and then save the mermaid.
While in Oblivion, you only catch a fish if you want to, you're not forced to do it, even if you talk to the guy, you can still not do it.

Also a note, there are plenty of RPGs that don't offer quests either (look below, I will try to find and post a video of a RPG without quests or "roleplaying" called Eternal Quest), while there are plenty of other genres that offer quests (adventure games, strategy games, racing games, etc.). So I don't understand why you're using the "quest" aspect as supporting a game as a RPG.

I don't think so. If he rescues her, he gets a reward, but AFAIK he can ignore her plight, and manage on without the magic trinket—though it may cost the player more money.
But even that is not the point. RPGs seem best when there are choice for the PC to prove his quality [to snatch a line from Faramir], and they seem not really to be RPGs when the player is not expected to care about the character's personality.

You require the Mermaid Scales to advance the game. There is a level that is underwater and without the Scales you die. You also have to get the key to reach the Kraken, because that is the only path the continue the game.
Another thing, if you go back to the old lady after rescuing the mermaid, all the old lady says it's the same thing she told you before, the whole story once again. Not much "roleplaying" in there, since you can't tell her you rescued the girl, you can't tell her you didn't rescue the girl, she doesn't ask or behave in any way as if you accepted or refused her "quest". Again, providing a good example that one has to stretch the imagination to "roleplay" in that game.

Yes they do—why else would I have listed them? (No seriously...Why would anyone offer a definition that they didn't believe illustrated their point or intent?)

No it doesn't, I noticed NMLevesque also touched the definitions from those links, so I will address this point when I am replying to him.

When I have played Fallout, with some of the PCs that have Dogmeat along, and if the pooch gets brutally attacked or killed, some have taken it so personally, that they would immediately stop, and expend even multiple turns to reach the one responsible, and (if non-animal) attempt to hit them in the groin with a sledgehammer [as personal payback]. For them, nobody kills their dog and gets away with it. And they did it so that it would be done with a hammer—as their gun was too good for them, and lacked meaning.

Yes, and? I mentioned that some RPGs allow what you people say it's "roleplaying", but so do other gaming genres (and sometimes even allow more "roleplaying" than RPGs). And the vast majority of RPGs do not allow something like that. I mentioned it over and over now.

This allows the game to cement a memory that becomes part of the recalling the character. When I played Cadash, I remember that Woz felt sorry for the old woman, and decided to put his immediate affairs on hold to help her out. It matters not that the player may find the monster & captive anyway—or even that she still gives him the reward (with a different response than had he not been sent by the old woman).

That's imagination, not roleplay by any definition on the dictionary. That is you assigning emotions and attributes that the game does not supply. You can do that to games from any genre.
Also I already mentioned that you can't go back and tell the old lady anything about what happened to the girl. So you just imagine "tell" the old lady you're going to save the girl, and then just never again come to talk to the old lady about it? What kind of attitude is that? How is that helping the old lady? Woz just "said" I will help you, and then never again comes back, great help that was it will definitely make the old lady feel better...

Great game. Those three are their own characters, and what characters they are too. All that's there for the player is to get the three of them home alive.

Yes, and it would be a RPG by your standards. Each have their own role and differences, and you can "roleplay" them all differently. So why isn't it a RPG?

No you won't. It might take a bit longer—just like with NOLF2; at best it might not. At worst you might jam the lock. This is because all Fallout characters have the lock pick skill. For your purpose, Gothic 2 is the better example; and it's what so impressed me about it. When you try to pick a lock without being trained in the task, he scoffs aloud that he knows nothing of locks.

But that is exactly what I said, in RPGs your skills, attributes, whatever stats your character uses say what you can and can't do.
Please read my words more carefully. You're repeating my own arguments by what I think is a misunderstanding on my own words.
In NOLF2 your "skill" don't stop you from doing anything, you just do them faster, heal more using items or score headshots in less tries. You can always do all of those slower, lower amount and less regularly.
This is getting frustrating, I keep repeating stuff over and over but I am not understood. No matter how much I type and how I put it... I have to apologise for not being able to write coherently enough, and i will ahve to stop trying.

True Story: When I was six years old, we had a pool in our apartment complex. The pool supply closet was locked with a conventional combination padlock; it was on a hasp well above my head. To reach it I had to stand with my back to it, with my arm as high as I could manage on tip toes, leaning back against the door. It was locked. I stood there randomly spinning the dial and pulling on it...until it was not locked. In Fallout, there is a minimum competency for skills, and it is totally possible to pick a lock without really knowing what you are doing... dials or tumblers—unless it's a REALLY good lock. The determining factor is time.

You say so yourself, unless it is a really good lock. Although it is more than just a really good lock, if you never increase your lockpick skill, you will not be able to open +90% of the locks in the game. No matter how long you keep trying, it will not happen. Not to mention that the chance of a lock jamming is also related to your character lockpick skill, so the lower the skill, the higher the chance to jam it. No amount of trying will open a jammed lock.
The skill limits what you can or can't do. Very different from NOLF2.

In Fallout, if you fail, you expend time, and perhaps try again. In NOLF 2, if Cate is a novice it takes longer to open the lock. The difference is that NOLF 2 uses an abstraction of the attempts, where as Fallout uses individual attempts, with individual failures. This is not to say that NOLF 2 is an RPG too—it's not; but in practice these systems play out the same... It takes longer than it would if they were an expert.

Not really no, please refer to what I typed above. I explain the difference and it is a big difference. One you can or can't do, the other, you can always do.

Those are not attributes, they are skills. They define the character's behavior, but they are not necessarily accurate, the behavior can be faked for diplomacy, or deceit, equally instead of their true beliefs. Stats don't exist in the game, just these skills, and the earned traits. There is no measure of the character's limits, how much they can carry, how fast can they run, whether their appearance or chutzpah can turn the tide on a bad (or a good) situation. In Unrest you roleplay a segment of several assigned character's daily lives with no stats.

Attributes, Skills, Stats, Abilities, Traits, Perks, Backgrounds, Values, etc. can be called anything (and they are not consistent between different games either). What matters is that they are a part of the characters and they are the things used for the characters to interact with the world around them. It is possible to have a RPG without numbers/value using a system of "tags". Imagine if Fallout instead of having Attributes it has Traits that say stuff like "Strong", "Weak", "Tough", "Wimpy" "Genius", "Dumb", "Quick", "Slow", "Charming", "Anti-social", etc. to represent the Attributes of the Fallout character, it would still be a RPG if when a character needs to have a high Strength score to do something, it used the "Strong" Trait instead.

But now to what you're saying. The game has the three values I mentioned before, they are even numerical values, and those are used for the characters to be able to talk and influence (or fail) conversations, characters also have Traits which allow to do/say unique things that they couldn't if they didn't have any Traits.
In Unrest your characters' interactions are dependent of these Stats/values and having or not these Traits.
This is what I have been saying RPGs have.
The values/stats/skills/etc. in a RPG are not limited to how much you can carry, how fast they run, etc. They influence everything about that character, from dialogues to actions, from even thoughts or situations, etc. It is all dependent how the game is made. Dialogue intensive RPGs will probably focus on using the characters' values/traits for conversation (both the PCs and NPCs values), combat intensive RPGs will probably focus on using the characters's values/traits for combat (both the PCs and NPCs).
This is exactly what happens in Unrest, Unrest uses the characters' stats and traits for the exact same reason. It's there, black on white for anyone to see.
Also, just because a RPG doesn't use the stats for parts of it gameplay, doesn't turn it into a not RPG. In Fallout most of the gameplay doesn't involve your character stats/traits/etc. specially if you make a smooth talker that plays solo and run from combat all the time. It doesn't make it less of a RPG. So just because you can play Unrest for a nice chunk of the game without using the stats/traits, doesn't make it so it doesn't use those for the rest and that's why it is a RPG.

You: "Unrest is a RPG and doesn't use stats or similar"
Me: "But it heavily uses these three stats/skills on conversion/influencing other characters all the time. It also has traits that affect what your character can do or say."
You: "It doesn't matter... Erm... There is not stats!"

You're limiting the notion of roleplaying here. D&D style imagination play with character stats isn't the end all be all of roleplaying. Videogame architecture can achieve the same things, such as verbally indicating what your character doing, through the interactivity of the software. The same types of choices and engagement in the story takes place. That's why RPGs can be boardgames, LARPing, pen and paper games, and videogames.

And yet, those things are also achieved in other gaming genres like Adventure games, Point and Click games, Simulation games, etc. That is not what makes a RPG, otherwise all of the previous genres would also be RPGs.

None were needed. You still need to roleplay in order for early pen and paper/board RPGs, it was just done without electronics to facilitate the experience. It was carried out verbally. The specific mechanics don't matter outside of the context of what experience they create. Build systems can be and RPG mechanic. They aren't always.

You didn't need to roleplay at all. You roleplayed as much on Chainmail or early D&D as you roleplay in monopoly and other board games. They were called Hack and Slash for a reason, the only thing you did was killing enemies in a dungeon.

The point of what I said was for you to elaborate on how games that don't require roleplaying are still RPGs. Which your wall of text didn't really illustrate. I wasn't questioning if hack and slash games can be RPGs. I was asking 'how is game X an RPG and how does it not allow roleplaying?'

Hack and Slash genre already tells you that. But I should assume no one knows genres anymore. I will return the question then, how does Gauntlet games allow roleplay? I already explained how Gauntlet works in my previous posts, I am tired of repeating myself because people ignore my previous words, it takes me literally hours to make posts like this, it would be nice if people actually read them properly.

Akin does not mean 'it's the same thing'. It was an analogy.

So? Then I can say stuff like FPS are akin to Platformers, because most of them have a jump function and you jump on platforms . It is not really relevant. Because we can come up with plenty of stuff that is akin to everything, and yet it is not the same.

Which means that they were doing improv, not acting out a play...which was my point to begin with...

But they were acting out a play. Like I said, there were strict rules and the story followed a written script. They had to always stay in character like in a play too. The murderer had to do and behave like the script said and had to do stuff by the script too (like leaving clues in specific places). It was improvisation for most people, but still had to follow the rules of not break the characters, which is one of the most (if not the most) important rules in theatre.
Also she only called roleplay to the "being in character", not to the improvisation, that was called "improvisation" by her.

...so you bring up a theatre game as the origin of roleplaying to explain what it really means...and your example is also a game...but it's not a roleplaying game, even though it's basically just LARPing. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. A has to equal A. That's logic.

You need to properly read what I type. What Viola called roleplay was the part of people "staying in character", not the Theatre Games. She still called them Theatre Games. Not Roleplaying Games.

1. (intransitive) To act out a fantasy, especially with a group.
2. (transitive) To act as a character as part of a fantasy, especially with a group

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roleplay

"Role play is the act of imitating the character and behaviour of someone who is different from yourself, for example as a training exercise."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/role-play

an activity in which you pretend to be someone else, especially in order to learn new skills or attitudes
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/role-play

And again, where in those definitions is what people do when they say they are roleplaying in a game?
A player is not imitating the character and behaviour of someone else.
This is about people copying someone else both physically and mentally. I don't know anyone who plays a computer game where they are copying both mentally and physically the character in that game.
That is why the dictionary also has the real gaming definition of roleplaying:
"Participation in a role-playing game."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/role_playing
This is the definition applied to the gaming "roleplaying". This is a different definition from all the other ones, the other ones do not include this one either. It doesn't say "you pretend to be someone else especially in order to learn (...) or while you play a roleplaying game."
Why does the dictionary has a separate definition for the gaming meaning? Because it doesn't apply to the other definitions.
Even the darn dictionary is saying that they are different definitions and apply to different things...

I said they require narrative choices about your character. I didn't define roleplaying as merely doing so.

So you say a RPG requires narrative choices about your character, and then you say roleplaying doesn't need to do it?
Where in this reply do you address the thousands of RPGs that offer no narrative choices? You said it requires it...

There isn't any roleplaying game where you can literally do anything...that your options are limited does not mean that you aren't roleplaying. For goodness sake, you just said it was about rules!

Yes, there is no RPG you can do everything because RPGs only allow you to do what your character stats say you can do . The limited options are what a RPG is. But roleplay is different from RPG. You can pretend you're Mario in Super Mario Bros, and apparently that nowadays is called roleplaying (the majority of people online use the term roleplay like that, I am not directing this at you guys).

Now about the limitations on a character, this is true for premade characters you play. You don't usually have much saying on what that character behaves, do, say etc. (although the game can allow some of this even for premade characters). Like the Geralt of Rivia character, you can pick what he specializes in by leveling him up, but you can't really change his personality.
But for a character you make yourself, it should allow your character to do and say anything they want to. Now if they succeed or fail, that is up to the rules to decide.
What's the point of me making my own character for me to "roleplay", decide on their personality, physicality, what they are good or bad at and then I go and play the game and that game doesn't allow me to stay in character? It forces me to play someone different from who I'm "roleplaying". Also I just can't "be" a character in a game, I am controlling the character, not "roleplaying" the character.

This is what I said before with the whole "I don't feel like I'm "roleplaying" my character, but forced to "roleplay" the developer character"?. I also said that others can do it, it's a personal thing .

That's like saying if you remove the original mechanics used in FPS games that you don't have an FPS. Mechanics evolve. So long as they accomplish roleplaying then it is a completely valid sentence to say that it is a roleplaying game. There is no other sensible definition for RPG. Just because the original RPGs accomplished it one way, does not mean that is the only way.

Mechanics evolve, but genres are eternal.
You don't go around 30 years later and say that "rock n' roll" is not "rock n' roll" anymore because instruments evolved, or the "horror" movies are not "horror" anymore because special effects and how movies are made now evolved, how "still painting" is not "still painting" anymore because people can now use software to draw pictures instead of real paint. That is why genres are genres.
If something is different enough from the already existing genre but maintain enough stuff from it, then it will give birth to a new sub-genre ( the "Metal" musical genre has tons of sub-genres, "RPG" has plenty of sub-genres, "Strategy" has enough sub-genres too, etc.). That is whole point of sub-genres, they have differences from the main genre, but they share enough with it to still be of that genre.

Look at a dreadful RPG for Playstation 2 that I bought new, dirt cheap when I first owned a PS2 back in the day:
Eternal Quest.
It is a RPG, and yet, how do you "roleplay" it in any way different then when you play Golden Axe or any other games like that:

This game is so obscure that it is difficult to find any video in HD, so this was the best I could find in short notice. But that is how the game plays from start to finish, so you get the idea.
In this game, you have the story told at the start by text, then you control the character and have to go through 99 levels. There is no dialogue, no NPCs, no interaction besides attack with sword, attack with throwing weapons, attack with magic scrolls, equip armor and weapon, consume items.
So... How can this be a RPG if it doesn't allow "roleplaying" in any way games in other genres also do? What is differentiating this game from the other genres that do pretty much the same thing while being different genres?
And there are plenty more RPGs like that one, I mentioned before the first cRPGs ever made were all like that. There are plenty of modern cRPGs like that too, so it is not only the old ones.

Then we have other genres like "Adventure" games that allow more "roleplay" than most RPGs, so why are they "Adventure" and not RPGs? I mention Heroes of Might and Magic, and I already also mentioned Football Manager and Crusader Kings 2:
Lots of not edited images, open at your own internet speed risk

Spoiler: More Roleplaying than most RPGs

It's possible for players to get it wrong. It's possible for a studio/developer to get it wrong. It's possible for critics and anyone else to get it wrong. Sometimes games have been mislabeled. Language is fluid, but logic is not.

It's not possible for the creator of a genre to get it wrong. Garriott created the cRPG genre He created the first and second and third cRPG and continued till he had almost programmed and made 30 cRPGs only during his school years... He made his first cRPG in 1975, less than 1 year after Dungeons and Dragons was first published. His games are considered the first cRPGs, not only by people today, but also by people back then. I already mentioned and posted snips from a 80's Dragon's Magazine where people talk about the emergence of cRPGs and how roleplay is only starting to be a feature of both cRPGs and tabletop RPGs in the late 80's.
So, you're telling me that the guy who created the genre doesn't know what the genre is, that people back then already knew and called his genre cRPG. While those games didn't allow "roleplaying", with some people even saying that "roleplay" could destroy the RPG genre (also in the snips I posted).... Just because you have your own definition of RPG that is not substantiated by the dictionary, by the majority of games in that genre, by the creator of the genre, by the people who were there when it appeared, that played, used that genre name already, and that considered (15 years later, when RPGs started to have "roleplay") the end of RPGs. Then there is really nothing I can say to sway you.

And that is why I have to stop now. I had already said I would stop, but it wouldn't have been fair or polite that I only addressed mostly Gizmojunk's posts when the original discussion was between you and me.
I really keep repeating myself and clogging the thread, two things I hate doing . I also used up a lot of awake time to type these (4 hours in this case ), which leaves me without time or energy to do much after I post. So please, don't consider my silence after your reply (if you reply of course) me being rude.

I do understand your position on this subject thanks to this discussion though .

 

[Gizmojunk]

do understand your position on this subject thanks to this discussion though .

As do I yours.

In NOLF2 your "skill" don't stop you from doing anything, you just do them faster...

As I have mentioned several times, and you repeatedly ignore the point of it, and claim that it's either wrong or moot.

youtu.be/wxrbOVeRonQ?t=77

You start with to "waste my time", and ignore everything I have said—except to gain say it. What more can be said; what more should be?

We've been here for years, and can talk about all sorts of things... just not the subject of RPGs.

 

[a721402]

At least both of you managed to turn a kinda pointless thread into a debate of role-playing, which is something more interesting to read than the original topic.

 

[naossano]

Wouldn't be just better to split the threads ?

 

[NMLevesque]

Yeah I'm a real wildman alright. The kind that lives on a couch. Ha ha...self zinger.

And yet, those things are also achieved in other gaming genres like Adventure games, Point and Click games, Simulation games, etc. That is not what makes a RPG, otherwise all of the previous genres would also be RPGs.

I thought you had just gotten through telling Gizmo that all RPGs also belong to other genres...

You didn't need to roleplay at all. You roleplayed as much on Chainmail or early D&D as you roleplay in monopoly and other board games. They were called Hack and Slash for a reason, the only thing you did was killing enemies in a dungeon.

'Nuh-uh' doesn't really articulate a point. I sort of doubt players were going through entire games without engaging in any kind of dialogue or interaction with the narrative.

I will return the question then, how does Gauntlet games allow roleplay?

I never said it did. Also, I think what you mean is 'how does Gauntlet require it'. My argument is predicated not on allowing roleplaying, but about whether or not the gameplay *is* roleplaying.

So? Then I can say stuff like FPS are akin to Platformers, because most of them have a jump function and you jump on platforms. It is not really relevant. Because we can come up with plenty of stuff that is akin to everything, and yet it is not the same.

Are we really arguing whether or not analogies are meaningful? It's just for illustrative purposes. I wanted to clarify using something else that is not in contention so you could understand my perspective.

You need to properly read what I type.

You're all over the map on this one honestly. Were people improvising? If yes, then either that was inherent to the process by design of the creator. Or it was just something the players decided to do. If it's the former then it conforms to my argument. If it's the latter then it supports yours.

And again, where in those definitions is what people do when they say they are roleplaying in a game?

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.

As indicated by the quoting, I was addressing a different point.

The part that's getting really confusing here is that you phrase things as though I accept your definition of an RPG. In the games that I believe are RPGs, the notions of roleplaying I provided are what you do. You act out a fantasy, act out a character, pretend to be a character, or imitate a character (in the way one would a puppet) through the choice architecture of a game.

This is about people copying someone else both physically and mentally. I don't know anyone who plays a computer game where they are copying both mentally and physically the character in that game.

That is why the dictionary also has the real gaming definition of roleplaying:

"Participation in a role-playing game."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/role_playing

This is the definition applied to the gaming "roleplaying". This is a different definition from all the other ones, the other ones do not include this one either. It doesn't say "you pretend to be someone else especially in order to learn (...) or while you play a roleplaying game."

That's not how dictionaries work...also, that just moves the goalpost from roleplaying to roleplaying game, which is a different entry. On the other hand that definition indicates that playing a roleplaying game is an act of roleplaying, which is my position.

It also defines roleplay as "The acting out of the part of a particular person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy". Which says nothing about mentally or physically embodying a character, nor does it rule out doing via puppets, character sheets and verbal commands, or videogame mechanics.

So you say a RPG requires narrative choices about your character, and then you say roleplaying doesn't need to do it?

Where in this reply do you address the thousands of RPGs that offer no narrative choices? You said it requires it...

That's not what 'merely' means. Please stop asking people to 'read carefully'. The irony is killing me. As for "thousands" of games that haven't been shown to be RPGs in this thread: it's not my burden of proof to show that there are non-roleplaying RPGs. That's your argument.

But roleplay is different from RPG. You can pretend

Yes roleplaying is its own concept...which roleplaying games are instrincally tied to. Roleplaying is broader. Roleplaying games are a subset of roleplaying, but are not simply games that are being roleplayed.

What's the point of me making my own character for me to "roleplay", decide on their personality, physicality, what they are good or bad at and then I go and play the game and that game doesn't allow me to stay in character? It forces me to play someone different from who I'm "roleplaying". Also I just can't "be" a character in a game, I am controlling the character, not "roleplaying" the character.

...so an RPG must have rules to constrain you...but if there are rules to constrain you then you're not roleplaying...but roleplaying is defined as staying in character, not improvising...so if you're trying to improvise your role in a game and it's not letting you do whatever you want, then it doesn't count as roleplaying...because that's staying in character according to the rules....wait.

You. Aren't. Making. Any. Sense. Here.

I don't mean to be rude but it's honestly making my head spin.

Mechanics evolve, but genres are eternal.

You don't go around 30 years later and say that "rock n' roll" is not "rock n' roll" anymore because instruments evolved

I never said RPGs weren't RPGs anymore. I said games are sometimes mislabeled. That happens in music too. Which is an analogy, and according to you those are meaningless or something. Either way, it's a flawed analogy. Defining musical genres is about feel. Sure they can mention styles of rhythm, patterns in what instruments are used, but the boundaries are soft. It's also generationally driven. Old genres mostly just go away. And people do argue that 'the new stuff isn't really [insert literally any genre ever]'. Simply put, music (on its own...) is not analogous to gaming.

Videogame genres on the other hand, are either mechanical or analogous to those of movies (e.g action, *adventure*, comedy, horror, etc). Mechanical genres include things like turn-based, FPS, platformer, sidescroller, hack and slash, and RPG. *Adventure* games are kind of misleadingly named, because they are also mechanically defined. Incidentally there are Adventure RPGs, as it's possible to have the mechanics of both.

The salient point however is that mechanical genres have no equivalent in movies or music...but they do have an equivalent in artistic media as a set/group/category. Each represents a different kind of experience, with their own type of interactions that are entirely consistent. Music is always music no matter the instrument. Movies are always movies no matter how moving images are made. And roleplaying games always always roleplaying games no matter how roleplaying gameplay is achieved (and please note that choosing to RP a game is not gameplay. Gameplay is mechanically apart of the game).

Eternal Quest.

It is a RPG, and yet, how do you "roleplay" it in any way

I don't see any reason to consider it one. On a side note, I'm not sure why you'd pick something obscure as an example. Best stick to things that are easy to go over, so it's easy to convey points.

Then we have other genres like "Adventure" games that allow more "roleplay" than most RPGs, so why are they "Adventure" and not RPGs? I mention Heroes of Might and Magic, and I already also mentioned Football Manager and Crusader Kings 2

As said above, adventure games can be RPGs. Also, HoMaM looks to have roleplaying gameplay.

It's not possible for the creator of a genre to get it wrong. Garriott created the cRPG genre

Authority on a subject doesn't make anyone immune to error. Ultima e.g is an RPG though. It's barely one, but it is one.

I already mentioned and posted snips from a 80's Dragon's Magazine where people talk about the emergence of cRPGs and how roleplay is only starting to be a feature of both cRPGs and tabletop RPGs in the late 80's.

They mentioned a shift in focus as best I can tell. Not the totally new introduction of a novel type of gameplay.

Lastly, I don't see any rudeness in not replying. The only rude thing I see about 'not replying', is when people reply just to demand that others stop replying. Those are silly people. Like a conversation is holding them hostage or something. Nothing wrong with being done talking though.