Re: PvP, the devil
Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 6:40 pm
>Roleplaying to me just mean you assumed the role of another character (i.e. >a toon called "Fyrx" for a game). Having it be competive playing or >co-operativing playing is irrelevant to the defninition. See, when I play >counter-strike, I consider myself roleplaying a terrorist or a counter-terrorist. >Is that wrong?
Yep, that's not roleplaying.
That's no different to choosing Chun-Li or Guile.
You're not playing a role, you're selecting a set of attributes.
In TTRPG terms that would be called 'Roll-playing' rather than 'Role-playing', EG: Nothing matters apart from results, you tweak your characters and make decisions based on 'winning' not on character progression or background.
>What you are talking about, I think, is play-acting, traditional roleplaying, >rpg. Sure, role playing games might have start out that way, where players >must go beyond the game mechanic and use their imagination to roleplay >their characters, but I don't think it has to be taken to that extend for it to >be considered "role playing" now-aday (you can thanks Dungeoun Hack and >Final Fantasy for that
).
Neither of those, even Final Fantasy, which I adore, is really role-playing. The course is largely pre-determined, you're playing out a story, not playing a role. Even the most advanced standard CRPGs that do have story trees and multiple endings fail on this score.
MMORPGs don't have to, since they're constantly developed, tweaked and added to they can respond to player actions more like a proper RPG creating greater immersion and involvement.
>Maybe what they should have done is come up with another accronym for >the rpg games that came after the traditional D&D games. Leave "RPG" to >the play actors, and come up with a new term for games like Final Fantasy >and Fallout, maybe "QG" for quests games
That's how the differentiation CRPG and TTRPG have come about, though TTRPGs came first and should hold the title you know
The differentiation in naming conventions came about in Japan where CRPGs had a much bigger dominance.
'play acting' as you call it, is a much richer and more involving experience.
Yep, that's not roleplaying.
That's no different to choosing Chun-Li or Guile.
You're not playing a role, you're selecting a set of attributes.
In TTRPG terms that would be called 'Roll-playing' rather than 'Role-playing', EG: Nothing matters apart from results, you tweak your characters and make decisions based on 'winning' not on character progression or background.
>What you are talking about, I think, is play-acting, traditional roleplaying, >rpg. Sure, role playing games might have start out that way, where players >must go beyond the game mechanic and use their imagination to roleplay >their characters, but I don't think it has to be taken to that extend for it to >be considered "role playing" now-aday (you can thanks Dungeoun Hack and >Final Fantasy for that
).Neither of those, even Final Fantasy, which I adore, is really role-playing. The course is largely pre-determined, you're playing out a story, not playing a role. Even the most advanced standard CRPGs that do have story trees and multiple endings fail on this score.
MMORPGs don't have to, since they're constantly developed, tweaked and added to they can respond to player actions more like a proper RPG creating greater immersion and involvement.
>Maybe what they should have done is come up with another accronym for >the rpg games that came after the traditional D&D games. Leave "RPG" to >the play actors, and come up with a new term for games like Final Fantasy >and Fallout, maybe "QG" for quests games
That's how the differentiation CRPG and TTRPG have come about, though TTRPGs came first and should hold the title you know
The differentiation in naming conventions came about in Japan where CRPGs had a much bigger dominance.'play acting' as you call it, is a much richer and more involving experience.
)