WOOT! Way to go for post count there!
BTW: Keep your head down! >:)
- Forums
- EverQuest
- General Discussion
- What's a hardcore-roleplayer in the best positive sense?
What's a hardcore-roleplayer in the best positive sense?Follow
Leiany wrote:
Based on all your comments I guess I have become nothing more than an "Archetypist" since I play on MR (having a family of toons was just to tempting)........but I admit I am not longer going through any real pain to give my characters more than average depth.
Cobra101 wrote:
Instead of an "Oh well my definition of roleplaying was wrong" we have "Well of course none of you would agree with me".
@Cobra: Try to bring that into a logical context please....
If you want to compare styles of art, compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.
Role-playing is a form of acting. Like acting, it is meant as a social event. If you are sitting alone in a room acting for no one else's enjoyment but your own, there are a lot of things it can be called but acting really isn't one of them.
Most computer role-playing games aren't really true-to-form. They are an attempt to bring role-playing to your computer, but due to everything being scripted before you actually get to play, they are really more action games than true role-playing games. They are an attempt to have you live a role-played life as another character.
"Morrowind" is probably one of the best examples of a "more-true-than-most" role-playing experience. While there is a story, you can ignore it completely and do what you see fit. You can develop your character the way you want, as quickly or slowly as you want, go where you want, be what you want. The problem with a game like this is you can lose focus and get bored with so much openness.
"Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic"(KotOR for short) is called a Role-playing game but is more of an action game. You are allowed to play your character in different ways, but the entire story is laid out for you to follow and there really isn't anything to do outside of what they planned. You can do side-quests, but those too were planned out long in advance. While not a role-playing game in the truest sense, what makes it fun is the focus. There is always something going on and the story keeps evolving. Here though you are living someone else's story rather than being able to make your own, or being about your story.
PC Gamer had an excellent article, in the Alternative Lives section, that described the different types of Role-playing games and did a much better job than I am doing. I'll try to find it later to post, it was very enlightening.
Baldar's Gate is more like KotOR than Morrowind as far as role-playing is concerned, and Diablo is more of an action game with some role-playing characteristics thrown in to advance the character's abilities.
Any game that allows you to "build" a character from something less to something more is being called a role-playing game these days.
Now, should I make a separate thread to answer everything you wrote like you did or simply keep to one thread? I think I'll stick to one.
Yes, it does in fact seem you were looking for public support on the board. If you were not looking for public support, you probably wouldn't have brought part of another thread to a new thread with the obvious intent of proving me wrong and showing that you are in fact a role-player. A hardcore role-player no less. If you weren't looking for public support, you would have kept this in the old thread rather than making a new one.
All the responses above that described role-playing were all correct except yours. That's not to say that everything you say is wrong, but in this case, the examples you gave showed that you really don't understand what role-playing really is.
Patrician telling you that it's impossible to solo a rogue past a certain level is not "anti-role-playing" talk, it's a limitation of the class within the Everquest environment. Everquest itself contradicts what I said on many levels. It's not a true role-playing environment. They dictate what races and classes you can play and how effective they are at certain things. They dictate that you can't make a Troll Bard and many other race/class combinations themselves. In a REAL role-playing environment you could play a Troll Bard if you wanted to. Patrician was stating a fact, not of his making, to you. Once again I'll state, Everquest is not a true role-playing experience. They are trying to bring a "pen and paper" like role-playing experience to you, but it is far from true. You can't do just about anything you want, their are a lot of limits "pen and paper" games just don't have.
I'll bring Cobra's definition to you. He feels as I do that you were looking for justification here. You writing...
...shows that you don't believe that you can get an unbiased opinion from anyone here. Cobra and I though know that you can get plenty of unbiased opinions. The real problem is that you have a serious problem admitting when you're wrong. Your idea of role-playing is a misconception based on your only real exposure to role-playing games being from the computer games, which isn't real role-playing.
Unfortunately it looks like all you are going to do now is once again argue with everyone and try to either make everyone agree with you, or walk away in frustration like the last thread. As I said in that thread, you really seem to just enjoy "baiting" people into arguments.
Role-playing is a form of acting. Like acting, it is meant as a social event. If you are sitting alone in a room acting for no one else's enjoyment but your own, there are a lot of things it can be called but acting really isn't one of them.
Most computer role-playing games aren't really true-to-form. They are an attempt to bring role-playing to your computer, but due to everything being scripted before you actually get to play, they are really more action games than true role-playing games. They are an attempt to have you live a role-played life as another character.
"Morrowind" is probably one of the best examples of a "more-true-than-most" role-playing experience. While there is a story, you can ignore it completely and do what you see fit. You can develop your character the way you want, as quickly or slowly as you want, go where you want, be what you want. The problem with a game like this is you can lose focus and get bored with so much openness.
"Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic"(KotOR for short) is called a Role-playing game but is more of an action game. You are allowed to play your character in different ways, but the entire story is laid out for you to follow and there really isn't anything to do outside of what they planned. You can do side-quests, but those too were planned out long in advance. While not a role-playing game in the truest sense, what makes it fun is the focus. There is always something going on and the story keeps evolving. Here though you are living someone else's story rather than being able to make your own, or being about your story.
PC Gamer had an excellent article, in the Alternative Lives section, that described the different types of Role-playing games and did a much better job than I am doing. I'll try to find it later to post, it was very enlightening.
Baldar's Gate is more like KotOR than Morrowind as far as role-playing is concerned, and Diablo is more of an action game with some role-playing characteristics thrown in to advance the character's abilities.
Any game that allows you to "build" a character from something less to something more is being called a role-playing game these days.
Now, should I make a separate thread to answer everything you wrote like you did or simply keep to one thread? I think I'll stick to one.
Yes, it does in fact seem you were looking for public support on the board. If you were not looking for public support, you probably wouldn't have brought part of another thread to a new thread with the obvious intent of proving me wrong and showing that you are in fact a role-player. A hardcore role-player no less. If you weren't looking for public support, you would have kept this in the old thread rather than making a new one.
All the responses above that described role-playing were all correct except yours. That's not to say that everything you say is wrong, but in this case, the examples you gave showed that you really don't understand what role-playing really is.
Patrician telling you that it's impossible to solo a rogue past a certain level is not "anti-role-playing" talk, it's a limitation of the class within the Everquest environment. Everquest itself contradicts what I said on many levels. It's not a true role-playing environment. They dictate what races and classes you can play and how effective they are at certain things. They dictate that you can't make a Troll Bard and many other race/class combinations themselves. In a REAL role-playing environment you could play a Troll Bard if you wanted to. Patrician was stating a fact, not of his making, to you. Once again I'll state, Everquest is not a true role-playing experience. They are trying to bring a "pen and paper" like role-playing experience to you, but it is far from true. You can't do just about anything you want, their are a lot of limits "pen and paper" games just don't have.
I'll bring Cobra's definition to you. He feels as I do that you were looking for justification here. You writing...
Quote:
You really think I would be hoping for public support in an argument on this board?
...shows that you don't believe that you can get an unbiased opinion from anyone here. Cobra and I though know that you can get plenty of unbiased opinions. The real problem is that you have a serious problem admitting when you're wrong. Your idea of role-playing is a misconception based on your only real exposure to role-playing games being from the computer games, which isn't real role-playing.
Unfortunately it looks like all you are going to do now is once again argue with everyone and try to either make everyone agree with you, or walk away in frustration like the last thread. As I said in that thread, you really seem to just enjoy "baiting" people into arguments.
Quote:
Before online-gaming was invented we all played role-playing games on the PC. The gaming industry and the gamers also drew a very distinctive borderline between "roleplaying games" and "adventure games". Stating that roleplaying only occurs due to interaction with other players would implie that a whole genre of PC-games where labeled wrong for 2 decades.
Yes, they have been wrong
Quote:
If you want to compare styles of art, compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.
Role-playing is a form of acting. Like acting, it is meant as a social event. If you are sitting alone in a room acting for no one else's enjoyment but your own, there are a lot of things it can be called but acting really isn't one of them.
Most computer role-playing games aren't really true-to-form. They are an attempt to bring role-playing to your computer, but due to everything being scripted before you actually get to play, they are really more action games than true role-playing games. They are an attempt to have you live a role-played life as another character.
Role-playing is a form of acting. Like acting, it is meant as a social event. If you are sitting alone in a room acting for no one else's enjoyment but your own, there are a lot of things it can be called but acting really isn't one of them.
Most computer role-playing games aren't really true-to-form. They are an attempt to bring role-playing to your computer, but due to everything being scripted before you actually get to play, they are really more action games than true role-playing games. They are an attempt to have you live a role-played life as another character.
For one reason or another, some where waaay back, some genius at a video game company decided to call an adventure game a roleplaying game because it had a system where your character got better by earning experience.
Certain magazines call games like Zelda a roleplaying game, which as a roleplayer (pen-and-paper), is almost a slap in the face.
Roleplaying, is as many people said - playing a role. It does have a very social aspect to it. But it also centers around alot of player background and player choices. Now yes, some video games do have aspects similar to roleplaying games - Morrowind, and the upcoming Fable are great examples, those are probably the closest games to being true roleplaying games. However so many games get dropped into that category. Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. Are all listed as Roleplaying - they are not - they are adventure games or Story games if you will. Really most people who play these games are just that, Gamers.
Look at it this way:
Roleplayer - you are the actor, and have to act (socially) based on the situations you were put in.
Gamer - you are the director, and you direct the character based on how they act and the situations they are put in.
So, for the most part, in games such as Baldur's gate, you "direct" the character from point A to point B. yeah, you kinda get to choose some course of action, but overall its limited by the storyline and what choices the game gives you.
Real roleplaying has very few boundries such as that, usually you are limited to the rules of the game, and how good your storyteller is.
now to flip it around.
What Leiany descibed is really a Hardcore Gamer - someone who doesn't want to play exclusively the same way as everyone else, tends to find new ways to enjoy an old favorite, and tends to learn as much about a game as possible.
Hardcore Gamers are usually the ones who play a game on Nightmare.
Quote:
The builder. This guy likes to build. This is the guy back in D&D who actually insisted that his warrior got X followers at Y level, and a keep at Z level, and so on. He's the guy who forms a guild (even in games where that's not realy a focus). He'll play a merchant and want to settle down and own his own shop (regardless of how hard that is to make fun from a GM point of view). He'll want to get invovled in the politics of the local town, and attempt to put characters into positions of power if he can. He'll make use of any tradeskills the game system has. Even if there's no real benefit, he'll do it just because he likes making stuff.
The builder trait isn't limited to just in game actions though. This is the guy who'll organize all the players characters into a spreadsheet with important skills highlighted and cross indexed so that the group can choose the optimal selection when forming up for a new adventure (he may get the minmaxer to help out on this!). This one's not that bad really. Aside from a penchant for wanting to roleplay his merchanting or tradeskill career, the builder can often be chanelled into "building" a structure that can make getting the characters into an adventure nice and easy. He's usualy pretty middle of the road in terms of roleplaying, but will *always* roleplay someone who's as much interested in finding that new alchemetical formula as he is in defeating the bad guy.
The builder trait isn't limited to just in game actions though. This is the guy who'll organize all the players characters into a spreadsheet with important skills highlighted and cross indexed so that the group can choose the optimal selection when forming up for a new adventure (he may get the minmaxer to help out on this!). This one's not that bad really. Aside from a penchant for wanting to roleplay his merchanting or tradeskill career, the builder can often be chanelled into "building" a structure that can make getting the characters into an adventure nice and easy. He's usualy pretty middle of the road in terms of roleplaying, but will *always* roleplay someone who's as much interested in finding that new alchemetical formula as he is in defeating the bad guy.
Hee hee, this describes me perfectly -
I have spreadsheets for EQ, I log every game and parse it, I have auto profilers running to keep track of all my gear at any time, etc. I'm not so interested in min/maxing, I just want to make sure I'm not missing out on something and I'm just playing as efficiently as I can.
Leiny, I think you're misunderstanding something. Really, Patrician's and Kerik's points aren't mutually exclusive.
EQ, for good or for ill, is a purely stat-driven game. There is no GM to let you do creative things like try to bribe the Freeport gate guards, roll a wagon filled with burning oil down the hallways of Runnyeye or try to hold Lord Elgnub hostage in the bottom of Blackburrow. A "real" roleplaying game will let you do these things. A "real" roleplaying game would let a rogue solo in some fashion and would have a GM who could manipulate the situations to allow a thief character to succeed (within reason) for the good and fun of the game. Even if the success isn't all in how many giants you've killed, a GM could allow the rogue to aquire experience by spying, flitching the crown jewels, assasinating a rival guildleader, defeating powerful magical traps, etc. In EQ you can get meaningful xp in one way -- by killing things about your level. In Everquest, it's a matter of your HP/DPS vs the mob's HP/DPS, nothing more. And, roleplaying or not, a solo lvl 50 rogue's HP/DPS do not match those of a blue con mob's HP/DPS.
Roleplay, except from a mental ************ standpoint, it fairly pointless in Everquest. No matter if you're the lost princess of Neriak, a fallen paladin of Erollisi Marr, a savvy and cunning ranger, an honorable dwarven warrior who remembers the Ogre Wars, a slaphappy mage who talks to Kobaner or a vicious and bestial troll shaman who's filled with rage over the rout from Grobb, you all still wind up in Butcherblock yelling "LFG" and you all still fall into the same Main Tank/Main Assist/Healer/Puller/CC roles. You can RP yourself as you kill your -nth Savagefang Harvester, but you don't have anything to really RP against. By which I mean an intelligent and responsive GM.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "real" roleplaying. I've been playing PnP games for well about 20 years now, ranging from stat driven min/max types like AD&D to more plot based games like Wraith to purely silly, fun games like Bunnies & Burrows. I don't claim to be a roleplaying expert, but I do know that even Bunnies & Burrows offered more plot driven character advancement than EQ does.
Ha! Kerik said much of what I did, two posts up. Teach me not to fully read the thread before responding. That's okay though.. my keyboard clatters in a most soothing manner as I type.
Edited, Fri Apr 9 09:51:26 2004 by Jophiel
EQ, for good or for ill, is a purely stat-driven game. There is no GM to let you do creative things like try to bribe the Freeport gate guards, roll a wagon filled with burning oil down the hallways of Runnyeye or try to hold Lord Elgnub hostage in the bottom of Blackburrow. A "real" roleplaying game will let you do these things. A "real" roleplaying game would let a rogue solo in some fashion and would have a GM who could manipulate the situations to allow a thief character to succeed (within reason) for the good and fun of the game. Even if the success isn't all in how many giants you've killed, a GM could allow the rogue to aquire experience by spying, flitching the crown jewels, assasinating a rival guildleader, defeating powerful magical traps, etc. In EQ you can get meaningful xp in one way -- by killing things about your level. In Everquest, it's a matter of your HP/DPS vs the mob's HP/DPS, nothing more. And, roleplaying or not, a solo lvl 50 rogue's HP/DPS do not match those of a blue con mob's HP/DPS.
Roleplay, except from a mental ************ standpoint, it fairly pointless in Everquest. No matter if you're the lost princess of Neriak, a fallen paladin of Erollisi Marr, a savvy and cunning ranger, an honorable dwarven warrior who remembers the Ogre Wars, a slaphappy mage who talks to Kobaner or a vicious and bestial troll shaman who's filled with rage over the rout from Grobb, you all still wind up in Butcherblock yelling "LFG" and you all still fall into the same Main Tank/Main Assist/Healer/Puller/CC roles. You can RP yourself as you kill your -nth Savagefang Harvester, but you don't have anything to really RP against. By which I mean an intelligent and responsive GM.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "real" roleplaying. I've been playing PnP games for well about 20 years now, ranging from stat driven min/max types like AD&D to more plot based games like Wraith to purely silly, fun games like Bunnies & Burrows. I don't claim to be a roleplaying expert, but I do know that even Bunnies & Burrows offered more plot driven character advancement than EQ does.
Ha! Kerik said much of what I did, two posts up. Teach me not to fully read the thread before responding. That's okay though.. my keyboard clatters in a most soothing manner as I type.
Edited, Fri Apr 9 09:51:26 2004 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
In the initial post Leiany wrote:
one either plays by the book or declares himself a freak
then Leiany wrote:
Patrician wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't take ya long to start playing by the book, did it freak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me how friendly/unfriedly/playfull the word "freak" was meant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't take ya long to start playing by the book, did it freak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me how friendly/unfriedly/playfull the word "freak" was meant.
So, Alas, Pat was quoting the word back at you
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
OK - I give up.
I have been told on this thread (amongst other things)
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
I have nothing more to say here.
grats
Edited, Fri Apr 9 11:14:10 2004 by Leiany
I have been told on this thread (amongst other things)
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
I have nothing more to say here.
grats
Edited, Fri Apr 9 11:14:10 2004 by Leiany
I don't see a contridiction, really. And, to be honest, I don't give a drowned rat's *** if you're wrong or right. Let's keep your persecution complex out of the thread for now.
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
I agree that Zelda, the SSI Goldbox games, Final Fantasy, etc aren't really RPGs in the classical PnP sense. There is very little flexibility or independant growth in the games. You just move along the predefined track, accumulating stats to defeat the end boss. It's kind of hard to claim you're roleplaying a fallen knight when your choices in a discussion with the castle guard are "Let me in to see the king!" or "No thanks. Sorry to bother you."
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
Everquest is more of a RPG than the offline games. If nothing else, you can roleplay someone who sits at the Qeynos gate and talks to giant rats if it makes you happy. That's not an option in Zelda. Likewise, unlike most of the offline CRPGs, there's no actual "winning", so no one can really say they won EQ and you didn't just because they killed Quarm and you listened to a rat go "squeak, squeak". Also, you have social interaction, so maybe you can convince another living person to join you in your rat-chat.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
You should play PnP RPGs if you want to actually experience character growth beyond stats. CRPGs are fine for stat driven progression and blowing some time. EQ is great fun over offline CRPGs (in my opinion) for social interaction while you develop stats. But you deciding that you're the ******* child of Sir Lucan makes zero difference to the Everquest game engine. A GM in a PnP can develop a plot around you being said ******* child or even some sort of twisted plot around your talking to rats that allows you to grow as a character. Everquest will never care about anything beyond what mobs you killed and what items you turn in to NPCs.
So, in short, for roleplaying: Offline CRPGs < MMORPGS < PnP RPGs.
What's not to understand?
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
I agree that Zelda, the SSI Goldbox games, Final Fantasy, etc aren't really RPGs in the classical PnP sense. There is very little flexibility or independant growth in the games. You just move along the predefined track, accumulating stats to defeat the end boss. It's kind of hard to claim you're roleplaying a fallen knight when your choices in a discussion with the castle guard are "Let me in to see the king!" or "No thanks. Sorry to bother you."
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
Everquest is more of a RPG than the offline games. If nothing else, you can roleplay someone who sits at the Qeynos gate and talks to giant rats if it makes you happy. That's not an option in Zelda. Likewise, unlike most of the offline CRPGs, there's no actual "winning", so no one can really say they won EQ and you didn't just because they killed Quarm and you listened to a rat go "squeak, squeak". Also, you have social interaction, so maybe you can convince another living person to join you in your rat-chat.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
You should play PnP RPGs if you want to actually experience character growth beyond stats. CRPGs are fine for stat driven progression and blowing some time. EQ is great fun over offline CRPGs (in my opinion) for social interaction while you develop stats. But you deciding that you're the ******* child of Sir Lucan makes zero difference to the Everquest game engine. A GM in a PnP can develop a plot around you being said ******* child or even some sort of twisted plot around your talking to rats that allows you to grow as a character. Everquest will never care about anything beyond what mobs you killed and what items you turn in to NPCs.
So, in short, for roleplaying: Offline CRPGs < MMORPGS < PnP RPGs.
What's not to understand?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nicely put Jophiel
However I doubt that
is an option.
However I doubt that
Quote:
Let's keep your persecution complex out of the thread for now.
is an option.
Wherever I go - there I am.
I've played a few 'pen and paper' RPGs and a few computer (so called) rpgs. Of the computer RPGs, I consider EQ to be the closest to a 'pen and paper' RPG that I have played but it is still a long way off the mark.
In my opinion, a major aspect of a hardcore roleplayer (in EQ)would be that they have earned all their XP through the completion of quests. Never in a 'pen and paper' RPG have I sat in a corner killing the same monsters over and over again just to earn XP (in some ways, LDoNs are much more true to roleplaying in this aspect but the storylines are incredibly weak). Obviously the game mechanics of EQ means that purely earning quest XP is not a viable way to progress a character.
Staying in character and observing racial traits are also aspects of roleplaying but as the game isn't built around a roleplaying strategy these are easy to overlook.
In my opinion, a major aspect of a hardcore roleplayer (in EQ)would be that they have earned all their XP through the completion of quests. Never in a 'pen and paper' RPG have I sat in a corner killing the same monsters over and over again just to earn XP (in some ways, LDoNs are much more true to roleplaying in this aspect but the storylines are incredibly weak). Obviously the game mechanics of EQ means that purely earning quest XP is not a viable way to progress a character.
Staying in character and observing racial traits are also aspects of roleplaying but as the game isn't built around a roleplaying strategy these are easy to overlook.
Quote:
From Lamey:
OK - I give up.
I have been told on this thread (amongst other things)
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
OK - I give up.
I have been told on this thread (amongst other things)
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
Wow so you post a question and get differing answers - how wierd is that, spooky eh. I bet that never happened to anyone else.
And when you post something that is wrong people tell you you are wrong - obvious victimisation.
Quote:
I have nothing more to say here.
If only I believed you.
Wherever I go - there I am.
I know Jophiel hit all these points and I agree with them, but I wanted to do my take on them also, even if I happen to say the same thing with other words....
Leiany wrote....
the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
The games really are action games, but have varying degrees of role-playing "elements". The marketing departments know people love the "pen and paper"(PnP from here on in) RPGs and wanted to get that crowd into their games. The ONLY thing they seem to need to call the game a "role-playing" game is a system where the character can gain stats and skills and develop over time(which is why Diablo can be called a role-playing game even though it's really the worst example of one).
Neverwinter Nights actually gives the tools to take this a step closer or the PnP experience by allowing the Dungeon Master/ Game Master(DM/GM) to take control of NPCs, but the actual single player game doesn't support this. Will computers EVER be able to make a true role-playing game? I really don't know, but I hope so. I do agree they are trying and getting better.
EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
EQ is an RPG in the way that all other computer games are which really means they are lacking greatly. EQ does what it can to give you the tools to role-play but does in fact fail. I really haven't spend any time on the FV server, but I tend to doubt a lot of the people there really role-play either. I'm sure some do, but the past 2 decades of computer based games really mis-informed a lot of people about what role-playing actually is. I talked to a friend at work who's into console games about RPGs and after a short discussion, it was obvious he's been brain-washed by the games and didn't really know what role-playing was really about either.
EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
If you really want to learn what role-playing is, that's a great idea. I'm not saying quit EQ, if you've been having fun, then stick with it. Playing real role-playing games is a lot of fun and very rewarding. It doesn't even have to be in a fantasy setting. I used to play one in the 80's called "Top Secret" and was a spy-like game set in the present(for us that was in the 80's). My character Anthony "Turk" D'Angelo(absolutely nothing like my real name) owned a computer store called PC Central located in Manhattan, the back half of the building was actually his home and he drove a 1985 Porsche 928S(then a brand new car). I had a background history for him and complete blue-prints of the business/home drawn out on graph paper. With a good DM/GM, you can have a blast, better than any computer RPG, but generally doesn't move NEAR as fast paced as computer games.
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
Sure, there is a big contradiction, that being that computer games actually contradict true role-playing. True role-playing is open and free-form and computer games are all pre-planned and scripted. Calling any of the current, past, or near future, RPGs for the computers and consoles real RPGs is a contradiction right there. They are actually action games with role-playing "elements" as I said above.
Lastly, this has never been about proving you wrong, it's aboutcorrecting a misconception you have about what role-playing is. Personally I do think you started this post the wrong way and for the wrong reasons though. You certainly couldn't have set up a spot-light any brighter on me, and I believe you had hoped I'd come up short. The fact is you loaded the gun yourself and this time it wasn't being point at an Undead Horse.
I personally came to these messageboards to learn new things, no real other reason. In reading the boards I often saw people asking questions I knew a lot of answers to so if I could help someone I did. Sometimes people asked for opinions, so I'd give them too. Everyone who came to this thread came for the sake of answering the question you asked, not with the intention of proving you wrong. I'm not trying to make you feel better here, and I'm not trying to make you feel worse either. I'm just trying to get you to open your mind. I see for myself that you get ideas into your head and then believe them as if they were hard facts and that nothing else could be true. The fact is that truth can often be subjective and that even facts can be disproved. Don't be so fast to think everyone hates you or wishes you bad, often it's far from the truth.
Edit for spelling
Edited, Fri Apr 9 22:36:22 2004 by KerikDaven
Leiany wrote....
Quote:
-the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
the gaming industry sold me rpg's for 2 decades that weren't I am not entitled to claim I played offline-rpgs
The games really are action games, but have varying degrees of role-playing "elements". The marketing departments know people love the "pen and paper"(PnP from here on in) RPGs and wanted to get that crowd into their games. The ONLY thing they seem to need to call the game a "role-playing" game is a system where the character can gain stats and skills and develop over time(which is why Diablo can be called a role-playing game even though it's really the worst example of one).
Neverwinter Nights actually gives the tools to take this a step closer or the PnP experience by allowing the Dungeon Master/ Game Master(DM/GM) to take control of NPCs, but the actual single player game doesn't support this. Will computers EVER be able to make a true role-playing game? I really don't know, but I hope so. I do agree they are trying and getting better.
EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
EQ is an RPG in the way that all other computer games are which really means they are lacking greatly. EQ does what it can to give you the tools to role-play but does in fact fail. I really haven't spend any time on the FV server, but I tend to doubt a lot of the people there really role-play either. I'm sure some do, but the past 2 decades of computer based games really mis-informed a lot of people about what role-playing actually is. I talked to a friend at work who's into console games about RPGs and after a short discussion, it was obvious he's been brain-washed by the games and didn't really know what role-playing was really about either.
EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
If you really want to learn what role-playing is, that's a great idea. I'm not saying quit EQ, if you've been having fun, then stick with it. Playing real role-playing games is a lot of fun and very rewarding. It doesn't even have to be in a fantasy setting. I used to play one in the 80's called "Top Secret" and was a spy-like game set in the present(for us that was in the 80's). My character Anthony "Turk" D'Angelo(absolutely nothing like my real name) owned a computer store called PC Central located in Manhattan, the back half of the building was actually his home and he drove a 1985 Porsche 928S(then a brand new car). I had a background history for him and complete blue-prints of the business/home drawn out on graph paper. With a good DM/GM, you can have a blast, better than any computer RPG, but generally doesn't move NEAR as fast paced as computer games.
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
Sure, there is a big contradiction, that being that computer games actually contradict true role-playing. True role-playing is open and free-form and computer games are all pre-planned and scripted. Calling any of the current, past, or near future, RPGs for the computers and consoles real RPGs is a contradiction right there. They are actually action games with role-playing "elements" as I said above.
Lastly, this has never been about proving you wrong, it's aboutcorrecting a misconception you have about what role-playing is. Personally I do think you started this post the wrong way and for the wrong reasons though. You certainly couldn't have set up a spot-light any brighter on me, and I believe you had hoped I'd come up short. The fact is you loaded the gun yourself and this time it wasn't being point at an Undead Horse.
I personally came to these messageboards to learn new things, no real other reason. In reading the boards I often saw people asking questions I knew a lot of answers to so if I could help someone I did. Sometimes people asked for opinions, so I'd give them too. Everyone who came to this thread came for the sake of answering the question you asked, not with the intention of proving you wrong. I'm not trying to make you feel better here, and I'm not trying to make you feel worse either. I'm just trying to get you to open your mind. I see for myself that you get ideas into your head and then believe them as if they were hard facts and that nothing else could be true. The fact is that truth can often be subjective and that even facts can be disproved. Don't be so fast to think everyone hates you or wishes you bad, often it's far from the truth.
Edit for spelling
Edited, Fri Apr 9 22:36:22 2004 by KerikDaven
-EQ is an rpg but I dont play in the true spirit of a roleplayer.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
Personally - from the general consensious of people, it all depends on how you play. But the way you are describing does not describe "roleplaying" - it describes your standard gamer.
For some people (probably most), its just a game. Very few people actually try to "act" like their character, and in most cases act more like jerks then anything else because they are not face to face with someone.
From all the old material I have read, EQ was intended to be an RPG. but now, however, it is mostly an Adventure Game. The only way to make this a roleplaying game for you is to roleplay your character with other players. That's pretty much it. Trying to really Roleplay by yourself is just creepy and usually means you need therapy.
If you really want to think your roleplaying when your sitting there, alone, working on tradeskills... then go ahead - though I'm not exactly sure what "role" you play when your clicking a button. If you were to say, take your wares and wander norrath and actually try to converse with players trying to sell them manually rathar than sit in the bazaar , then you'd start racking up some roleplaying points.
-EQ is no rpg in fact and I should play paper&pencil rpgs
all this as the various posters see fit just to prove me wrong and no one sees a contradiction in the above except for me.
Personally - from the general consensious of people, it all depends on how you play. But the way you are describing does not describe "roleplaying" - it describes your standard gamer.
For some people (probably most), its just a game. Very few people actually try to "act" like their character, and in most cases act more like jerks then anything else because they are not face to face with someone.
From all the old material I have read, EQ was intended to be an RPG. but now, however, it is mostly an Adventure Game. The only way to make this a roleplaying game for you is to roleplay your character with other players. That's pretty much it. Trying to really Roleplay by yourself is just creepy and usually means you need therapy.
If you really want to think your roleplaying when your sitting there, alone, working on tradeskills... then go ahead - though I'm not exactly sure what "role" you play when your clicking a button. If you were to say, take your wares and wander norrath and actually try to converse with players trying to sell them manually rathar than sit in the bazaar , then you'd start racking up some roleplaying points.
In my years of EQ, I have only met a handful of REAL role players, and a couple of them were almost scary they were so fanatical.
The computer games that claim to be RPG's are usually first person adventure games, but that does not sell as well. And few people remember when adventure games, that were just words, no graphics, were around. Then they were action adventures, then RPG's, but while the graphics improved drastically, the name changes were advertising more than reality.
Mostly in EQ I act more like me, than a character, except for the teeny tiny detail of running around killing things to level, and I tend to bathe more in RL, and I don't pick up putrid slime covered ****, and I would have a heart attack if I ever even thought about a spider bigger than me, so there is SOME role playing.
The computer games that claim to be RPG's are usually first person adventure games, but that does not sell as well. And few people remember when adventure games, that were just words, no graphics, were around. Then they were action adventures, then RPG's, but while the graphics improved drastically, the name changes were advertising more than reality.
Mostly in EQ I act more like me, than a character, except for the teeny tiny detail of running around killing things to level, and I tend to bathe more in RL, and I don't pick up putrid slime covered ****, and I would have a heart attack if I ever even thought about a spider bigger than me, so there is SOME role playing.
Sir KerikDaven wrote:
I used to play one in the 80's called "Top Secret" and was a spy-like game set in the present(for us that was in the 80's). My character Anthony "Turk" D'Angelo(absolutely nothing like my real name) owned a computer store called PC Central located in Manhattan, the back half of the building was actually his home and he drove a 1985 Porsche 928S(then a brand new car). I had a background history for him and complete blue-prints of the business/home drawn out on graph paper.
Be careful, Sir Kerik. You are starting to show us your age! Next you'll be telling us that you played Traveller when it first came out. ( A friend bought the first box set. I spent 8 hours rolling up a character who became a septegenarian during the course of character generation, then after making Admiral, he died in a siege action. Talk about a waste of 8 hours. And the GM said, "Well the chart says you died, so you died. Wanna try again?" "SURE!" I replied)
Or even Rolemaster when it first came out! ( I still have all the first books from it that came out. Spell Law was divided up into three parchment books called Channeling Law, Mentalism Law, and Essence Law )
Rolemaster now there is a system that forgot that roleplaying was about imagination not numbers. Thecrt tables where fun though i still have a copy lying around somewhere.
I played Cyberpunk for 5 years <15-20> and while the mechanics where basic we had a good GM who let the story evolve around the players, they ran the game he just filled in the blanks and put angry henchmen in the way.
roleplaying is player driven EQ is not. EQ is driven by SoE and thats why we complain about them so much
I played Cyberpunk for 5 years <15-20> and while the mechanics where basic we had a good GM who let the story evolve around the players, they ran the game he just filled in the blanks and put angry henchmen in the way.
roleplaying is player driven EQ is not. EQ is driven by SoE and thats why we complain about them so much
We have the Rocky and Bullwinkle role playing game. Does that count? It comes complete with puppets.
Rolemaster and Spacemaster were both cool. I think I had most of the books, but not all. Arms Law, Claw Law were two others I remember. I think I bought Spacemaster after it was revamped, I liked the original books more. I believe I.C.E. went under, but was later revived, not sure though. I used to love reading all the critical hits and misses, they were too funny. One of my favorite critical misses was "you tripped over an imaginary dead turtle". The hits were pretty graphic and cool. That was a cool system.
I'm old, but not that old.
I'm 33, it's all good. You're not gonna start another argument with me here now are you Vaanan? (hehe, j/k)
I used to enjoy Car Wars by Steve Jackson, G.U.R.P.S. and a few others(Obviously AD&D from my other posts). I owned an Atari 2600, pong before that and a Commodore 64 after that. Ahh, the good old days.
I'm old, but not that old.
I'm 33, it's all good. You're not gonna start another argument with me here now are you Vaanan? (hehe, j/k)
I used to enjoy Car Wars by Steve Jackson, G.U.R.P.S. and a few others(Obviously AD&D from my other posts). I owned an Atari 2600, pong before that and a Commodore 64 after that. Ahh, the good old days.
I was having an argument on the Warhammer Online boards recently about roleplay in a MMOG being consensual. WO has a very strong following from the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay cultists. This was a PnP system which they evidently liked and the online game is largely taking it's cue from it.
My point was that PnP roleplay is by its very nature consensual in that you get together with these people to roleplay. Not only that but as Gbaji pointed out there is a GM on hand to sort out any issues.
Whereas in a MMOG roleplay (as in the playing out of your character's story) has to be more explicitly consensual. First there is no GM (Mythical creatures) but more importantly the person you are trying to roleplay with needs either pre-arrangement of storyline or strong clues (possibly ((ooc tells))) to follow it - or decide you are a raving loony and they want nothing to do with you.
To use an extreme example which seems popular on FV (John Norman has a lot to answer for) - slavery. You cannot roleplay Player_A makes Player_B their slave unless Player_B agrees to the situation. The whole thing disintegrates if one person becomes too forceful in their treatment of others. Handled with consent it runs the storyline in the direction the people both want it to go, without it is bad roleplay.
Interestingly they are describing WO as a MMOG, not a MMORPG. Maybe this is because they understand the difference.
I would like to disagree with some of the earlier posts about EQ with a subtle distinction.
EQ may not be designed to facillitate roleplaying but it is possible to roleplay within the online world offered by EQ.
My point was that PnP roleplay is by its very nature consensual in that you get together with these people to roleplay. Not only that but as Gbaji pointed out there is a GM on hand to sort out any issues.
Whereas in a MMOG roleplay (as in the playing out of your character's story) has to be more explicitly consensual. First there is no GM (Mythical creatures) but more importantly the person you are trying to roleplay with needs either pre-arrangement of storyline or strong clues (possibly ((ooc tells))) to follow it - or decide you are a raving loony and they want nothing to do with you.
To use an extreme example which seems popular on FV (John Norman has a lot to answer for) - slavery. You cannot roleplay Player_A makes Player_B their slave unless Player_B agrees to the situation. The whole thing disintegrates if one person becomes too forceful in their treatment of others. Handled with consent it runs the storyline in the direction the people both want it to go, without it is bad roleplay.
Interestingly they are describing WO as a MMOG, not a MMORPG. Maybe this is because they understand the difference.
I would like to disagree with some of the earlier posts about EQ with a subtle distinction.
EQ may not be designed to facillitate roleplaying but it is possible to roleplay within the online world offered by EQ.
Wherever I go - there I am.
It's say it's POSSIBLE to role-play in many games, some not even meant to be role-playing games. The key is, as you said, consent. There must be others who facilitate the role-playing experience. With that, even Mechwarrior can be role-played in(meant as a simulation game).
Personally, the best way to have a TRUE role-playing experience online is to simply play a PnP role-playing game through a chat-room. One person is DM/GM and the others are the players. You could do that within EQ, but you wouldn't be looking to actually play EQ, just use it as a chat-room.
As you said, you CAN role-play in EQ though. As state above though, there are a great number of limiting factors that greatly detract from the experience. You couldn't bribe a guard to get a true result, and the NPC's won't cooperate in the act. You really couldn't even plan monster encounters, you'd have to find them yourself. Also, you really can't advance your characters in any way other than killing monsters. Yes, you CAN role-play, but it's such a weak and lacking environment that it wouldn't be nearly as rewarding as doing so in a true role-playing game. Even if everyone was trying to facilitate in as in the FV server.
Personally, the best way to have a TRUE role-playing experience online is to simply play a PnP role-playing game through a chat-room. One person is DM/GM and the others are the players. You could do that within EQ, but you wouldn't be looking to actually play EQ, just use it as a chat-room.
As you said, you CAN role-play in EQ though. As state above though, there are a great number of limiting factors that greatly detract from the experience. You couldn't bribe a guard to get a true result, and the NPC's won't cooperate in the act. You really couldn't even plan monster encounters, you'd have to find them yourself. Also, you really can't advance your characters in any way other than killing monsters. Yes, you CAN role-play, but it's such a weak and lacking environment that it wouldn't be nearly as rewarding as doing so in a true role-playing game. Even if everyone was trying to facilitate in as in the FV server.
Quote:
Personally, the best way to have a TRUE role-playing experience online is to simply play a PnP role-playing game through a chat-room. One person is DM/GM and the others are the players. You could do that within EQ, but you wouldn't be looking to actually play EQ, just use it as a chat-room.
/agree
Everyone knows (well most everyone) that the father to games like EQ were MUDs or Multi-User Dungeons. They were text based games just like EQ. But they were never really called RPGs, some people did roleplay in them, but there was another type of thing for those people
Talkers, as I know them by, took the MUD format and changed it.. Instead of mobs, you had other players or the occasional GM who made NPCs and threw them into the game. You could roll dice to see if you did an action, and many were based on roleplaying games out at the time, in particular, the White Wolf Series seems to have had (and still has) a large number of talkers out there.
EQ is a pretty MUD - you can make it a talker if you want, using /duel or /random for rolls or something.
Of course, do you want to pay 12.95 a month to have a fancy chat room in EQ?
I don't consider myself a hardcore roleplayer. I have an alt in a roleplaying guild, mostly so that I can have a ball watching some far better roleplayers than myself tell their stories.
The traits I'd use to define a hardcore roleplayer is someone who is extremely focused on their character's personality and story. While having storylines running isn't necessary to roleplay, it's kind of a distinction I'd make between those who really get into roleplaying (eg, hardcore), and those who sort of dabble in it, like myself.
I saw mention of what Gbaji mentioned about characters with freakish or bizarre histories; it's sort of my experience that players who have rather unusual traits or histories they've made for themselves tend to be either pretty good or pretty bad, with a slight tendency (as in all things) towards the latter. Players who take that much of an interest in their characters aren't generally dull, at least. In many cases, it's been a great deal of fun to use those sort of things as a deadpan icebreaker. "So, you have wings, huh? How's that working out for ya?"
I think being unyielding isn't a requisite. Given the many, many glaring anachronisms of roleplaying in an online game, you need to be able to ignore at least some of it to an extent. A lack of flexibility just seems to hinder opportunities to roleplay with others, and has never particularly impressed me.
The traits I'd use to define a hardcore roleplayer is someone who is extremely focused on their character's personality and story. While having storylines running isn't necessary to roleplay, it's kind of a distinction I'd make between those who really get into roleplaying (eg, hardcore), and those who sort of dabble in it, like myself.
I saw mention of what Gbaji mentioned about characters with freakish or bizarre histories; it's sort of my experience that players who have rather unusual traits or histories they've made for themselves tend to be either pretty good or pretty bad, with a slight tendency (as in all things) towards the latter. Players who take that much of an interest in their characters aren't generally dull, at least. In many cases, it's been a great deal of fun to use those sort of things as a deadpan icebreaker. "So, you have wings, huh? How's that working out for ya?"
I think being unyielding isn't a requisite. Given the many, many glaring anachronisms of roleplaying in an online game, you need to be able to ignore at least some of it to an extent. A lack of flexibility just seems to hinder opportunities to roleplay with others, and has never particularly impressed me.
Quote:
Talkers, as I know them by, took the MUD format and changed it.. Instead of mobs, you had other players or the occasional GM who made NPCs and threw them into the game. You could roll dice to see if you did an action, and many were based on roleplaying games out at the time, in particular, the White Wolf Series seems to have had (and still has) a large number of talkers out there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 39
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (39)
- Forums
- EverQuest
- General Discussion
- What's a hardcore-roleplayer in the best positive sense?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC