Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lumin]

I think you guys are both right.  You cannot role-play without having at least one "stat": your role.  This also means that if we say that a game has to have "stats" to be considered a game, then role-playing AND role-playing games are both games by this definition.

Any time you describe a feature about your role, you are assigning it a statistic, even if it cannot really be quantified.  For example, if my role is "a dark-haired man with brown eyes and long, matted black hair", I have assigned a statistic that can be measured by those who are role-playing with me.  Even if that "stat" does not involve number crunching, it enhances the role-playing game experience.

For that matter, any game that we are playing the role of another character could be considered an RPG.  When we are playing "Super Mario Brothers" we are role-playing a plumber named, "Mario" with high jumping ability that can shoot fireballs.

The difference between a game like "Mario" and "Baldur's Gate" is not that one is a platformer and the other is an RPG, but that the latter does a better job at creating a deeper sense of disbelief than the other as an RPG.  BG helps us believe that we are indeed role-playing more so than we are in Mario.

So my take on it is that role-playing is always a game because it must always have at least one statistic: boundaries and a rule-set that needs adhering to, to be played effectively.

[Chutney]

Besides what Rhodan has been saying about RPG being a very specific term referring to a genre, I have a little question that might get your brain a-thinking.

What's the difference between a sandbox and baseball?
Well, baseball has a set of rules, therefore it's a game.
A sandbox can be played in, and you can do whatever you want, you can even make up rules for how to play in the sandbox, but the sandbox itself doesn't have any rules.
Thus, the sandbox is a toy, and baseball is a game.
So, analogy time: Role-playing is to sandbox as role-playing game is to baseball. (Wow, that was astoundingly clear and concise for me ) If you still aren't convinced, I could expand upon my point, and explain how role-playing and sandboxes are alike, but I really hope I'm actually being as clear as I think I am...

And lumin makes a good point, except than an RPG is a specific term referring to a specific kind of game, which is what really makes Mario not an RPG. (sorry lumin, you did make good points about the loose definition of stats, though! )

[Vahan]

You're making the same logic mistake Yanlin did.
Stats does equal RPG, since "RPG" is a name of a genre of games that heavily features stats or similar to define player characters.  Period.  The first games to be called an RPG had stats, and all games after that.  It's defining of the genre. 

There's no point arguing about how roleplay does not need stats or how you can also roleplay in other games that are not RPGs, that has nothing to do with it.  This is not about roleplay, this is about RPGs. The literal meaning of the words "role playing game" is not the same as the actual meaning.
Roleplay adds immersion, and most RPGs are intended to be more immersive with a little extra roleplay, but they're still RPGs if you munchkin your way through.

As for the real life argument: let's compare resumes, I'm sure there are quite a few skills you have that I don't.  You're possibly bigger or smaller or stronger or weaker than me.  And even if all these things happen to be identical, you're most likely the opposite alignment.
If we would transfer ourselves into an RPG game, our different strengths and weaknesses would be written down as stats.  Do you really think we would be two identical characters?

You're making a logical fallacy.

Some roleplaying games use stats.
Therefore, roleplaying games MUST have stats.

I mean, come on, it's not even a break in dadatic logic, it's just an illogical leap.

[Rhodan]

Except that I never said that. 
I said that the term "RPG" has first appeared referring to games involving stats. They evolved from tabletop wargames. (also involving stats, but not geared towards character development)
I'm saying all roleplaying games use stats. Therefore, if it doesn't have stats it's not a roleplaying game.  (Though it might be a game with roleplay in it, but that's pretty hard without stats)

My logic is this:
People found a bird that quacks, and called it a duck.
Thus: A duck is a bird that quacks.
This other bird doesn't quack, so it's not a duck.  It could be a lot like a duck though, but not a real, healthy duck.
This bird does quack, but it might not be a duck.  It could be a parrot or some kind of half-duck.

Is there a name for the fallacy of applying the wrong fallacy?

[Vahan]

Except that I never said that. 
I said that the term "RPG" has first appeared referring to games involving stats. They evolved from tabletop wargames. (also involving stats, but not geared towards character development)
I'm saying all roleplaying games use stats. Therefore, if it doesn't have stats it's not a roleplaying game.  (Though it might be a game with roleplay in it, but that's pretty hard without stats)

My logic is this:
People found a bird that quacks, and called it a duck.
Thus: A duck is a bird that quacks.
This other bird doesn't quack, so it's not a duck.  It could be a lot like a duck though, but not a real, healthy duck.
This bird does quack, but it might not be a duck.  It could be a parrot or some kind of half-duck.

Is there a name for the fallacy of applying the wrong fallacy?

"Stats does equal RPG, since "RPG" is a name of a genre of games that heavily features stats or similar to define player characters.  Period.  The first games to be called an RPG had stats, and all games after that.  It's defining of the genre."

It is not defining of the genre. It is no way close to defining of the genre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

"This article is about games in which one plays the role of a character. For other uses, see Role-playing game (disambiguation).

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants often determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the gameWithin the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game, but certain games only determine it based on whether the gamemaster decides a player can complete that action or not."

[Yanlin]

But I already said that.

[Rhodan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

"This article is about games in which one plays the role of a character. For other uses, see Role-playing game (disambiguation).

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants often determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the gameWithin the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game, but certain games only determine it based on whether the gamemaster decides a player can complete that action or not."

You have to underline the whole sentence: Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game, but certain games only determine it based on whether the gamemaster decides a player can complete that action or not.
This basically means that in some games, players cannot improvise and have to rely on the GM to determine their success or fail.  If you check the link to the source of the last statement, [2], you'll see how it clearly illustrates the GM making decisions on whether the characters fail to be sneaky or not.  The GM will decide success or fail depending on the character's abilities. (Using a character sheet, or just knowing that this char is a 7ft Barbarian and thus is very unlikely to be unseen)  A good GM would influence chance-based actions towards the more interesting resolution.

The "often" bit refers to the improvisation. And if the action of your character is not following it's characterization, it's not performing it's role very well.  Imagine an RPG where characters don't decide what they do based on their characterization, not adhering to their role at all...

I again suggest you read the entire Wikipedia article, and check the sources again.  There is no mention whatsoever of any official RPG that does not use statistics in some form or another.  For something that is in no way close to defining of the genre, there's a surprisng wall of text describing Stats and Character creation, treating them as quite an essential part of RPGs.  If you can find an example of an RPG title that does not use any form of statistics, be my guest.  But even then this RPG would be quite the exception to the rather obvious norm.  Every big RPG so far prominently featured stats and character generation.  Any lesser known RPG probably did as well.  Any RPG that didn't probably fell into obscurity because it wasn't an actual RPG.

Seriously people, an RPG is more than just RP.  It's a game.  A game has rules.  Rules need stats.  Player A can only perform action B if he has skill C.  Simple as that.  There's no way you can do anything without keeping this in mind.  If a player says "I walk to the door.", he has to be able to walk.  That's a stat, a measure of the character's abilities.  Period.  On a computer, stats can only be represented by numbers, whether hidden or not.  Any more periods and we'll hit menopause.

[Yanlin]

Rhodan...

No... I have no words to describe that.

Can we get back on topic? I like the Ryzom multiclassing feature.

[Rhodan]

I'm sorry, we're probably on entirely different wavelengths here, and I'm not good at being verbose.
The discussion doesn't really matter anyway, a game is a game even by any other name.  I'm still convinced that even though RPGs are about roleplay, they require stats.

Anyways, Ryzom's multiclassing is neat, but lacks synergy.  You can have the highest magic skill in the world, but it won't help you much when you switch into your combat gear and go clobbering insects.  Each class has it's own equipment and energy bar, so you're kinda playing 4 characters in one, switching out your equipment and skillbar when you want to go do something else.
Putting your own skills together is awesome, but also doesn't go cross-classing.  It would be nice to combine a heavy sword strike with a fireball skill, or an explosion spell with a resource-scanning skill (making resource explode or something, dunno)

[Sergius]

I once tried Ryzom's "newbie area", it was interesting somewhat, the grind was horrible but it made sense somehow. I wanted to find out how the game was after that... mission/quest-wise. So I read a lot of info and forums and threads, they pretty much said "newbie area is the only decent part of the game, after you leave it everything becomes exclusively grinding and there is nothing else to do."

It may be hyperbole but there was a consensus in different sites, so it turned me off completely and I reconsidered buying it.

[Rhodan]

That was my experience as well.  The newbie area was great, but the world beyond was just too grind-questy.
It was pretty, though.  I really wanted to explore it more (without getting killed)

[Vahan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

"This article is about games in which one plays the role of a character. For other uses, see Role-playing game (disambiguation).

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants often determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the gameWithin the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game, but certain games only determine it based on whether the gamemaster decides a player can complete that action or not."

You have to underline the whole sentence: Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game, but certain games only determine it based on whether the gamemaster decides a player can complete that action or not.
This basically means that in some games, players cannot improvise and have to rely on the GM to determine their success or fail.  If you check the link to the source of the last statement, [2], you'll see how it clearly illustrates the GM making decisions on whether the characters fail to be sneaky or not.  The GM will decide success or fail depending on the character's abilities. (Using a character sheet, or just knowing that this char is a 7ft Barbarian and thus is very unlikely to be unseen)  A good GM would influence chance-based actions towards the more interesting resolution.

The "often" bit refers to the improvisation. And if the action of your character is not following it's characterization, it's not performing it's role very well.  Imagine an RPG where characters don't decide what they do based on their characterization, not adhering to their role at all...

I again suggest you read the entire Wikipedia article, and check the sources again.  There is no mention whatsoever of any official RPG that does not use statistics in some form or another.  For something that is in no way close to defining of the genre, there's a surprisng wall of text describing Stats and Character creation, treating them as quite an essential part of RPGs.  If you can find an example of an RPG title that does not use any form of statistics, be my guest.  But even then this RPG would be quite the exception to the rather obvious norm.  Every big RPG so far prominently featured stats and character generation.  Any lesser known RPG probably did as well.  Any RPG that didn't probably fell into obscurity because it wasn't an actual RPG.

Seriously people, an RPG is more than just RP.  It's a game.  A game has rules.  Rules need stats.  Player A can only perform action B if he has skill C.  Simple as that.  There's no way you can do anything without keeping this in mind.  If a player says "I walk to the door.", he has to be able to walk.  That's a stat, a measure of the character's abilities.  Period.  On a computer, stats can only be represented by numbers, whether hidden or not.  Any more periods and we'll hit menopause.

Space Station 13 has no stats, and I don't think anyone could say that is not a roleplaying game.

And, Rhodan, that's just stupid. The idea that "stats" are what you can do is a completely and utterly foolish idea.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_system

"A role-playing game system is a set of game mechanics used in a role-playing game (RPG) to determine the outcome of a character's in-game actions. While early role-playing games relied heavily on either group consensus or the judgement of a single player (the "Dungeon Master" or Game Master) or on randomizers such as dice, later generations of narrativist games allow role-playing to influence the creative input and output of the players, so both acting out roles and employing rules take part in shaping the outcome of the game."

[Yanlin]

3rd time we tell him that. He still wont accept it. Yes. We gave him that quote 3 times.

[Sowelu]

That's talking about the tabletop, multiplayer type.  Not the single-player computer/console genre.

[Yanlin]

Incorrect. It's talking about RPGs. Period.