quote:

---

Originally written by Drakefyre:

Does this really matter?

It's all semantics.

On the one side we have SkeleTony who thinks that RPGs should be about the player doing what they want and getting stronger (simplified, I know).

---

quote:

---

On the other, we have people like me.

You ask why I don't read a book or watch a movie. I'm not inside of a book. I'm not a character in a movie.

---

quote:

---

I can be a part of the story in a scenario. I think it's fun. And that's why I play scenarios.

---

quote:

---

I think we could definitely have scenarios that we both thought were great. A totally immersive world like in Exile II or Geneforge. I like both of them. But we don't have the tools to make them in Blades of Exile/Avernum. There are limitations. More often than not, scenarios tip towards one end of the spectrum, usually a lot. But we have to wee with the willy we've got. And we've got a rather small willy.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dastal:

To use your example of burrying the hatchet, I think we can take it one step further. People ended their dissagreements long before the phrase "burrying the hatchet" or any other euphimism for it existed. Similarly, people role-played and played RPG's without realized that what they were doing was what we might call role-playing. In many cases, the whole concept of role-playing games was actually a return to the basis for many of the wargames that it grew out of! Most wargames started as small individual or small unit simulators, and grew into tactical, operational, theartre or global simulations. Then people wanted more individual game play, so they took the tactical simulations and cut them down to squad and then individual simulations.

Members of special operations forces were doing what ammounted to RPG's long before the dawn of a fomral D&D system. Certainly the Ranger School of the late 50's had on the ground role playing, and as part of training for Army Special Forces (Green Berrets), there is substantial roleplayeing, up to the point of what we would consider an RPG, even in the early Sixties. The graduation excercise then called GOBBLER WOODS, and now known as ROBIN SAGE was and is the true epitome of live action RPG's.

Thus, just because we didn't call it an RPG then, there are still RPG's.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dastal:

SkeleTony, I think you are confusing games with simulations. I highly recomend the book The Art of Wargaming to you on the subject.

---

quote:

---

In a game, combat is a puzzle.

---

quote:

---

There are a whole set of valid solutions to combat, much as there are a whole set of solutions in game theory. Different solutions have different outcomes, but will still end the encounter. Even death is a valid solution, just not the optimal one. Each "round" of combat, or each action constitutes a move in the puzzle, in response to which the puzzle changes, much like any other puzzle. The whole series of moves constitutes the solution to the puzzle, or the end of the encounter.

---

quote:

---

Looked at in the right light, anything can be a puzzle.

---

quote:

---

How you get out of the consequences for tardiness can be considered a puzzle. Of course, in reality, and in simulation, I consider combat as significantly more than a puzzle, but that's really getting into philosophy.

A game is just that: a game. The mechanics can break the game, but they do not make it. Freeform RPG's can have no rules at all beyond the ad hoc rulings of the GM, and they are still fun, while something like ENWGS (Electronic Naval War-Gaming System) is a very good simulation of naval warfare, possibly the best, but is often not considered fun, in the traditional sense.

---

quote:

---

SkeleTony, you appear to be a realist, so let's try some realism. When you game, and your character is on a long march with few rations, do you want to feel the hunger, exhaustion and weary feet?

---

quote:

---

More poignantly, do you want to be shot every time your character is? Of course not. If you really wanted that experience, you'd enlist.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I perfer either futuristic or fantasy games because I have no need for the full-on experience of war. I plan to join the Navy after college, and many of my family members are or were in the armed forces. I game to get away from the world, so I have no problem going a bit lighter on the mechanics.

---

quote:

---

But back to the issue of what is an RPG, and what are mechanics, Cops and Robers has mechanics. Are they very complicated? No.

---

quote:

---

However, the fact that there are rules, and the rules for how to shoot each other constitutes mechanics.

---

quote:

---

Chess is a wargame.

---

quote:

---

It's a very simplified and outdated wargame, yes, but even so, it is a wargame.

Let's look at the acronym RPG: Role-Playing Game, not Reality-Playing Game. An RPG can actually be as simple as practicing for an interview, or job training in the service industry. Indeed, practicing how to act in front of a custromer is often refered to as role-playing or the excercise as and RPG. Are there in any rules in, say, practicing for an interview? No. Are there people playing roles? Yes. Ergo, it is an RPG. In this very simplified case, there is minimal backstory: you are being interviewed by someone for something. It may not even have an assumption on who the someone is or what the purpose of the interview is. There is no real resolution. The rules are nothing more than that you need to present yourself, or the person you are pretending to be, in the best light, or maybe not even that. There are no "win" or "loss" conditions. Still, it is an RPG.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drakefyre:

I think that beating an Orc chieftan, getting the Ring of +3 Armor, and then heading off to the Ogre Dungeon to level up some more is just pointless, tedious, and boring. This does not interest or excite me.

Why do I play scenarios? I want to be excited. I want to be placed in the middle of a story and I want to find out what happens. I want to be swept up and moved along. That's what I find fun.

Also, there are some different kinds of puzzles:

Tactical challenges - different and challenging combat
More conventional puzzles - Get across the bridge without it breaking, etc.
Riddles - these are awful and should just be thrown out

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Retr-O:

Cops and Robbers isn't a game? What is it, then?

Every game has the potential to be a roleplaying game. Stats mean nothing, it's about envisioning yourself self as something.

Wanna jump off that cliff 'cuz you think Gordan Freeman has gone suicidal due to his experiences in Black Mesa (Half-Life)? That's roleplaying.

Wanna lead your troops into the middle of an obvious ambush because you, their great general, has tunnel vision (Age of Empires)?

It's roleplaying. Dare say it's not?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Retr-O:

How is "Cops and Robbers" not an RPG?

You pick a role, you play it, and do things that this character would do. You are playing a role. Roleplaying.

I do agree with your analysis of the modern connotation of "RPG". It's a dispicable world we live in. And we have Japan to thank for this.

Uh and since I missed this back when the topic was started, my input: linearity = good if you want to tell a story.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:



Perhaps single-player computer RPGs just aren't the medium for you. Having designed BoE scenarios, and both designed and GMed a tabletop RPG system, it's my opinion that trying to make single-player computer RPGs feel like multiplayer tabletop RPGs is counterproductive.

---

quote:

---

Tabletop RPGs work best when they're relatively light on mechanics (not many people like to spend all day rolling dice).

---

quote:

---

They're essentially collaborative storytelling games with a referee and a few rules for settling disputes.

---

quote:

---

In CRPGs, on the other hand, mechanics aren't a problem because the computer handles them itself, but the game itself consists of little more than a range of pre-determined story elements and puzzles (combat, after all, is just a certain kind of puzzle).

---

quote:

---

Therefore, interest can be added to a CRPG either with a good plot or good puzzles (and a combat system relatively heavy on mechanics is one of the most valuable puzzle design tools at a designer's disposal.)

---

quote:

---

Genuine interactivity in CRPGs is limited to what the designer foresees and allows for. It's better to be honest and acknowledge that rather than try to create a false sense of complete interactivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:

---

Yes...WE have and it never gets old :D (unlike linear, being led by the nose through someone's creative vision type scenarios).

---

If you're talking about TM's work here, do keep in mind that the first advice most players will give you regarding a TM scenario is to ignore the plot. :P

---

quote:

---

He's popular as a designer mainly because he has a knack for presenting interesting tactical challenges. It seems to me that the main difference between his scenarios and the kind of is that TM's scenarios present a mostly linear series of self-contained tactical challenges, whereas you seem to prefer to be able to view the scenario as a whole as a single, all-encompassing tactical challenge.

---

quote:

---

Well, my point was that "conventional" BoE combat (i.e. lots of monsters with few fancy tricks) rarely provides a challenge. Standards of "conventional" BoA combat and corresponding strategies are likewise beginning to form. And whatever you may think of TM's plots (and frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the less one thinks about them the better), it's innovators like TM who are able to look past those standards and provide new and interesting challenges.

---

quote:

---

But the thing is, the people in this community who innovate the most also tend to be the ones who have grand artistic visions to take us through. Fairly often, the two are inseparable; a particular combat works and makes sense because of the way the plot's progressed. (Besides, plot generally makes combat feel more unique and important; as one community member once said when betatesting my scenario, "I like to kill people with personalities".)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

I have a certain amount of respect for what DreamGuy, SkeleTony and Toasty are saying. At the same time, I disagree with it utterly.

There is a great scope for creativity in design. There is no One Way to make a scenario and there is no One Essential Ingredient. Sometimes you might like to create your own characters and let 'em lose in a scenario, and some will go to great lengths to allow you to play any sort of person you want. Others will give you an interesting character and invite you to step into his shoes for a few hours. You may like one or the other more. I prefer the latter.

That said, I do believe that confusion over the relationship between player and party is a common thing, and usually pretty detrimental. I think a designer should make it clear what the party is, in his eyes. Players can then take it or leave it, but it's part of the designer's vision, and should be regarded as such, rather than as a design error.

---

quote:

---

I think our new BoA players are used to feeling like they are in control when they play, and the simple fact that they are not irks them.

---

quote:

---

But that's the way it is. Even if you feel like you are, it's an illusion created by the designer. The mindset of a player should be to approach the designer with trust, accept his rules, and allow him to take you into his world.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:

---

I absolutely DETEST linearity, even though I recognise that it is, to a certain degree, unavoidable. I think that anytime a designer imposes severe restrictions on the party ...

---

It's necessary for the designer to give the party some backstory, if only in order to get them into a situation where they'd be able to take part in the events of the scenario in the first place. This can be as simple as "You heard about someone hiring people for a mission and decided to go there and see what it was about", or as complicated as the party being the last survivors of an attack on a fort by enemy forces.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Computer RPGs, moreso than P&P RPGs, are tactical simulators. The goal is to improve your character(s) by overcoming obstacles.

---

There's a problem with this that BoE players are very familiar with. After 200 different scenarios, ordinary BoE combat just isn't new or interesting any more. Either a designer has to do something very original and clever in combat (in which case he's at risk of being pilloried for it by new or occasional players who claim the designer is cheating), or he has to make the scenario interesting in ways other than through combat (in which case he's at risk of being pilloried by new or occasional players who only play for combat). In a few years we'll be in a similar situation with BoA scenarios.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Plot CAN be an incidental bonus to a scenario or CRPG, as can well developed NPCs and such but it is not integral to a good scenario no matter what the poetry-reading, new-age spirtualist-intellectuals will try and tell you.

---

I'd argue that no single element is integral to a good scenario. There have been a few highly-regarded BoE scenarios with little or no combat.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

These are GAMES. You take the "GAME" out of "Role Playing Game" and you are left with drama club or improvisational storytelling(which are NOT role playing GAMES).

---

Technically, they're called scenarios. :P

---

quote:

---

Interactivity and choice are generally good things, but they're not the only way to add interest to a scenario.

---

quote:

---

BoE players have well and truly been there and done that dozens of times before.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

The basic engine is so well-understood that most experienced players know exactly what the optimal strategies are for every kind of combat (to the point where some players habitually take level-1 parties into level-20 scenarios). BoA will be in the same situation before long.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

Let me guess: you're the one going by "Not registered" at the Lyceum.

That, I think, explains a lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thunvael:

quote:

---

I have switched to 'strong atheism' recently because of the reasons I have outlined here, namely that I see no difference between asserting that round squares cannot exist and asserting that gods cannot exist. Since I absolutely know that there can be no such thing as a round square, for logical reasons and I say as much, I am no longer beating around the bush with logically inconsistent "gods" either.

---

does not the very fact of existence defy our absolute and necessary notions of logic ? Something is needed for something else, yet things do not come from nothing etc ?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Solodric:

I've thought of a few others I liked:

The original Blade, simply because, despite all the cursing, it made for a good way to waste some time ;) DEFINITLY not the sequel, and I havent seen Blade Trinity

---

quote:

---

The Maltese Falcon. It may be old, but hey, there was just something badass about Sam Spade ;)

Dont forget that if it werent for TMF, we might not have Black Trenchcoats in movies. Can you imagine The Matrix without black trench coats?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Sagieuleaux:

quote:

---

And this claim is automatically dismissed because it is absolutely void of ANY meaning.

---

I seem to recall you repeatedly disputing my assertion that a meaningless statement couldn't be true. Why the sudden about-face?

---

quote:

---

[quote]We both AGREEE that there can be no "meaning" understood(for ANY words) without things capable of such(abstract thinkers/minds) which is a seperate issue from whether matter exists.

I don't think it is a separate issue. A statement that isn't meaningful can't be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Andrew Miller:

I assert that people don't have the perceptive capability necessary to make such determinations, and it follows that what a person can't perceive he can't describe. Given that our logic relies on our capacity for observation (currently in three dimensions + time), it is thus doomed to failure because we (currently) can't observe a fourth (or other) dimension.

---

quote:

---

Logic, when applied to matters of additional dimensions, will return a result of nonsense, "undefined," or what have you, because our logic is a tool rooted in our context.

---

quote:

---

I think therefore that logic doesn't rule out that other dimensions could exist, so much as demonstrate that it, based on a ruleset of three dimensions + time, is the wrong tool for the job.

---

quote:

---

I can't prove that another dimension exists. You, hovever, for the same reason cannot prove that it does not exist. "Nonsense" is not the same thing as "false."

---

quote:

---

Given this inability to observe another dimension, I think the best answer we have right now is: "We don't know." Your stance seems to me to be that what we can observe - three dimensions & time - is the absolute limit of existence.

---

quote:

---

Because you are incapable of proving or disproving this, however, this assertion is "nonsense" in kind; in other words, a belief. That to me seems short-sighted.

---

quote:

---

And so I propose a god that exists not only in our three dimensional + time context, but also in another dimensional sense that we cannot prove or disprove.

---

quote:

---

This god could be omnipotent or very nearly so,...

---

quote:

---

perhaps not omniscient but omnipresent, able to observe and touch our world, moving in and out of it along this other dimension just as Sphere used height to move in and out of Flatland. I cannot prove this god exists; you cannot disprove it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Andrew Miller:

That something is indescribable != impossible. I really don't think citing "Flatland" as an example is helping your case. At best, it demonstrates that while we're incapable (currently) of perceiving/describing a "higher" order/additional dimension, a "higher" order/dimension could exist. This was my point with the blind person analogy way back when.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by ef:

I know 'Flatland', though it's been a while that I've read it.

quote:

---

UNLESS...We somehow became part of GOD's reality(re: became gods ourselves).

---

The third dimension - our world - is aware of the second and first, as our reality contains and surpasses them both. The same would probably be true for a fourth, fifth, sixth dimension. What we know as our world would be embedded in and be part of a larger reality that we cannot imagine. And if that multi-dimensional consciousness at the end of the ladder (if there is an end) is what we call by the name of 'God', then certainly we are part of it and its reality, just as the first and second dimensions are part of ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Andrew Miller:

quote:

---

Originally written by SkeleTony:

Read the book Flatland(free online. Do a Google for it). In it there is a universe of just two dimensions wherein these sentient 2d entities("squares", "circles" etc.) exist. One day, a 3dimensional "sphere" passes through their universe but he appears just as a 2D "circle which grows then shrinks before vanishing which is entirely conssitent with the laws of "Flatland".
Then "Sphere" decides one day to grab "Square" and show him the reality of the 3D universe outside his own. When he takes "Square" into 3D space, "Square" of course becomes "Cube" because one cannot remain bound by constraints which do not exist. When "Cube" eventaully returns to "Flatland" and becomes, once again, a "Square", he is unable to explain his experiences outside of Flatland to the other shapes. It is all gibberish and nonsense because they have no frame of reference to understand what he is saying and as he has become, once again bound by the physical laws of Flatland and 2D existence, he himself cannot make sense.

The point being made by the author is that we cannot say 'X' exists without being a part of 'X's reality(in this case Gods ourselves) OR 'X' becoming part of OUR reality(God becoming natural and mortal and mundane). Without this frame of refernce, saying "X(re:God) exists" makes no more sense than saying "Gibbleslotch varga7es!"

---

Thank you for this reference - this book is very intriguing.

Doesn't the example this text sets actually refute the entire basis for your assertion that God can't both exist and be logically impossible? That WE CAN'T say X exists without being a part of X's reality does not equal X CANNOT EXIST. The sphere could enter and leave the two-dimensional world at will, a seemingly impossible feat - could not the same thing occur within the three-dimensional world along a fourth dimension? What the author illustrates is not the all-binding nature of the rules but our own limits of perception. I assert that just because we cannot observe/comprehend a fourth dimension does not mean that that dimension cannot exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

I am a bit bothered by your idea that any concept of a god outside of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent one is too vague to be useful, since it seems to be entirely based on your own desire not to think about such a thing. You have not refuted it; you have simply refused to deal with it.

At any rate, I'm bored, so I guess I'm done here.

---