My other thread, where I explained that I knew nothing about RPGs, got retardo'd. So this is kind of a continuation of that - a further insight on my path of discovery about these things you people call RPGs.
First of all, I've decided the "What is a CRPG?" discussion is pointless. In order to answer that question in any sane way, you have to first answer "What is an RPG?" But that discussion is equally pointless, because from what I've gathered there has never been a consensus among players.
OD&D did not call itself a "role playering game." The box cover says "rules for fantastic medieval wargames." The text itself refers to choosing a "role" as a combination of race and class: "players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user." What I can't figure out is who called this activity "role playing" first. It's misleading because it suggests that the player is an actor in a story, which is not what OD&D was actually about. It was just a game, and people played to win. Ron Edwards explained that the rules were revised and scattering among publications, so a lot of people made it up as they went, playing for make believe instead of to win. AD&D was Gary Gygax's response to this, which was not received well by those who were told they were playing it wrong.
Point is there was already at least two very different things people were calling D&D. So if D&D is the archetypal RPG, and we can't even agree on what D&D is, then how can we say what an RPG is? I suggest it is nonsense. D&D was not a "role playing game" to begin with, and whatever the thing is that everyone else was doing ("role playing") was not D&D. Ron Edwards identifies the former activity as a "gamist" approach and the latter as a "narrativist" approach, which I'm sure many here are already familiar with.
Does any of this matter as far as determining what sort of games I like? No. I'm sure there are plenty of jazz purists who scoff at avant garde, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying stuff from John Zorn or Nels Cline. Who cares if Robert Fripp doesn't consider Genesis prog. rock? Genesis is fucking awesome, and fuck what Robert Fripp considers (I love you as a bro Robert). Who cares if Dark Souls is an RPG? Dark Souls is fucking awesome.
Am I sperg status enough yet? Get this: I'm starting to think "role playing" is not even compatible with games. Obviously game makers want to cater to gamists and narrativists, but the result is that both demographics suffer. I have never played a game that had great gameplay and a great story. Planescape: Torment had one of the best stories in video games, but it was hampered every step of the way by its poor gameplay. I wanted so badly to love its story like others around here, but every time I'd really start to dig it ("Holy shit did Ravel just TOUCH me?!") I'd get immediately thrown into some nonsensical fetchquest or its shitty combat. I think I would have enjoyed it much more as a book, except that I'd then have to compare it to other books. On the other hand, some of the best gameplay I've experienced recently came from the Souls games, whose story is hardly important, and Valkyria Chronicles, which I hated for its story but didn't care because it was so much fun to play.
tldr; someone once said to post again after I'd figured out what I like. Well I figured out that I like games. I like them for being games. I like gamey games, with rules and win conditions, that don't pretend to be something else. I like struggling to meet the challenge, and eventually overcoming it. And I really, really hate larping. Seriously, my friends suck at telling stories. Which is why I'm going to kill them all (in character) at our next session.
Still working on Ultima IV. Pool of Radiance is next.
First of all, I've decided the "What is a CRPG?" discussion is pointless. In order to answer that question in any sane way, you have to first answer "What is an RPG?" But that discussion is equally pointless, because from what I've gathered there has never been a consensus among players.
OD&D did not call itself a "role playering game." The box cover says "rules for fantastic medieval wargames." The text itself refers to choosing a "role" as a combination of race and class: "players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user." What I can't figure out is who called this activity "role playing" first. It's misleading because it suggests that the player is an actor in a story, which is not what OD&D was actually about. It was just a game, and people played to win. Ron Edwards explained that the rules were revised and scattering among publications, so a lot of people made it up as they went, playing for make believe instead of to win. AD&D was Gary Gygax's response to this, which was not received well by those who were told they were playing it wrong.
Point is there was already at least two very different things people were calling D&D. So if D&D is the archetypal RPG, and we can't even agree on what D&D is, then how can we say what an RPG is? I suggest it is nonsense. D&D was not a "role playing game" to begin with, and whatever the thing is that everyone else was doing ("role playing") was not D&D. Ron Edwards identifies the former activity as a "gamist" approach and the latter as a "narrativist" approach, which I'm sure many here are already familiar with.
Does any of this matter as far as determining what sort of games I like? No. I'm sure there are plenty of jazz purists who scoff at avant garde, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying stuff from John Zorn or Nels Cline. Who cares if Robert Fripp doesn't consider Genesis prog. rock? Genesis is fucking awesome, and fuck what Robert Fripp considers (I love you as a bro Robert). Who cares if Dark Souls is an RPG? Dark Souls is fucking awesome.
Am I sperg status enough yet? Get this: I'm starting to think "role playing" is not even compatible with games. Obviously game makers want to cater to gamists and narrativists, but the result is that both demographics suffer. I have never played a game that had great gameplay and a great story. Planescape: Torment had one of the best stories in video games, but it was hampered every step of the way by its poor gameplay. I wanted so badly to love its story like others around here, but every time I'd really start to dig it ("Holy shit did Ravel just TOUCH me?!") I'd get immediately thrown into some nonsensical fetchquest or its shitty combat. I think I would have enjoyed it much more as a book, except that I'd then have to compare it to other books. On the other hand, some of the best gameplay I've experienced recently came from the Souls games, whose story is hardly important, and Valkyria Chronicles, which I hated for its story but didn't care because it was so much fun to play.
tldr; someone once said to post again after I'd figured out what I like. Well I figured out that I like games. I like them for being games. I like gamey games, with rules and win conditions, that don't pretend to be something else. I like struggling to meet the challenge, and eventually overcoming it. And I really, really hate larping. Seriously, my friends suck at telling stories. Which is why I'm going to kill them all (in character) at our next session.
Still working on Ultima IV. Pool of Radiance is next.