Once again, the discussion of "what constitutes an RPG" has come up - and let's not debate that here. For the time being, I think we can agree it is fairly arbitrary what defines that. For "history" sake, i'd like to point out that the use of "RPG" to describe single-player team - we used to say "party" - squads as tactician and manager, goes back to the OLD computer "RPGs".
I'd also like to point out, character improvement is NOT character development.
My personal opinion is that you're not "role playing" until you have your character do something in game; like an author, that you wouldn't do, but that the character would, even if it's not "tactically perfect" - and I don't just mean in combat. As much as I love them, games where you manage a team that seems to have group telepathy, isn't IMO 'roleplaying'.
However, onto the meat.
MovieBob pointed out in one of his tangent-rants that superheroes, vampires, wizards, etc, shared in common a kind of elite, an extra-normal type of hero/villain that creates an extended "social" network of friends and foes ( nemeses ), rather than anonymous faceless minion enemies.
Relatedly, ALOT of "rpgs" - even some of the mmo's - seem to depend on the "chosen one" mechanic/ plot device.
SO i suppose what i'm asking you is, could YOUR game of choice survive if your character died?
This came up in a thread on another forum, where a series of squad-based games was "getting more rpg eleemnts" and ome of the vets pointed out, we already "develop" characters like an RPG, by this do you mean if the starting characters die, the plot is screwed? ( nad he made the point, yes, I like my characters, but it's WAR, and some people are gonna DIE - if it wasn't dangerous, everyone would do it )
if i may, as a counter example, in a non-computer, "real" role-playing game, we had a long campaign where, the heroes LOST.
Unexpectedly.
I subscribe to - though i'd never called it that - Alexander Macris's "agency of Fun" theory -
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/7485-Check-for-Traps-Judging-the-Game
that if the story FORCES the good guys to win, there's no sense of the "gamble" that makes games a GAME ( on the other hand, there was quite a bit of "non-games" that preached the opposite - linear in the way many computer RPG's are - you HAVE to reboot from ave if you lose, no way for the story to ocntinue elsewise ).
ANyway, my point here is, I got a rep as a "killer" DM - some of the local players were used to the kind of games where a DM might throw "ogres" at a beginning party - then have to make the ogres die from a single arrow so the party would quit losing ( you've seen it, too, i'm sure).
But after a bit of shock on all our parts; it was agred the game could - and should go on.
The game had gotten nicknamed" as the kingdom turns" for the non-combat content - most of the players had wives, children, allies, and enemies by this part of the campaign.
We picked up the campaign 16 years later - with most of the old player characters' children as the new characters - the effect of the last storyline/campaign, since the campaign hadn't been "save the world", was that there was a dukedom where, let's say, the new characters were well-advised to avoid.
What's my point? None, specifically - I ma not trying to convince anyone my "point" is right or the only way to run a game - i DEFINITELY noticed a personality difference in the guys that preferred the "we can't lose ever" game to my game...
ANd maybe that's really the central point/ question - I wonder how many "role playing" games are games called so only because the characters ARE in effect the story -
and i wonder how much the appeal of being "the chosen one", special, is of these games.
As an aside, in "traditional" RPG's , often the recurring theme was "rags to riches" - being a nobody or near-nobody, and making ones-self a lord ( or what-not ) - or, more frequently, dieing in the attempt.
Some people were ok with that, some can't stand it. - different tastes.
Please don't flame me if i said something horrifically offensive, I'm not trying to say "this way" or that way is better, I am, on the other hand, interested in looking at why these different approaches appeal to people.
I'd also like to point out, character improvement is NOT character development.
My personal opinion is that you're not "role playing" until you have your character do something in game; like an author, that you wouldn't do, but that the character would, even if it's not "tactically perfect" - and I don't just mean in combat. As much as I love them, games where you manage a team that seems to have group telepathy, isn't IMO 'roleplaying'.
However, onto the meat.
MovieBob pointed out in one of his tangent-rants that superheroes, vampires, wizards, etc, shared in common a kind of elite, an extra-normal type of hero/villain that creates an extended "social" network of friends and foes ( nemeses ), rather than anonymous faceless minion enemies.
Relatedly, ALOT of "rpgs" - even some of the mmo's - seem to depend on the "chosen one" mechanic/ plot device.
SO i suppose what i'm asking you is, could YOUR game of choice survive if your character died?
This came up in a thread on another forum, where a series of squad-based games was "getting more rpg eleemnts" and ome of the vets pointed out, we already "develop" characters like an RPG, by this do you mean if the starting characters die, the plot is screwed? ( nad he made the point, yes, I like my characters, but it's WAR, and some people are gonna DIE - if it wasn't dangerous, everyone would do it )
if i may, as a counter example, in a non-computer, "real" role-playing game, we had a long campaign where, the heroes LOST.
Unexpectedly.
I subscribe to - though i'd never called it that - Alexander Macris's "agency of Fun" theory -
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/7485-Check-for-Traps-Judging-the-Game
that if the story FORCES the good guys to win, there's no sense of the "gamble" that makes games a GAME ( on the other hand, there was quite a bit of "non-games" that preached the opposite - linear in the way many computer RPG's are - you HAVE to reboot from ave if you lose, no way for the story to ocntinue elsewise ).
ANyway, my point here is, I got a rep as a "killer" DM - some of the local players were used to the kind of games where a DM might throw "ogres" at a beginning party - then have to make the ogres die from a single arrow so the party would quit losing ( you've seen it, too, i'm sure).
But after a bit of shock on all our parts; it was agred the game could - and should go on.
The game had gotten nicknamed" as the kingdom turns" for the non-combat content - most of the players had wives, children, allies, and enemies by this part of the campaign.
We picked up the campaign 16 years later - with most of the old player characters' children as the new characters - the effect of the last storyline/campaign, since the campaign hadn't been "save the world", was that there was a dukedom where, let's say, the new characters were well-advised to avoid.
What's my point? None, specifically - I ma not trying to convince anyone my "point" is right or the only way to run a game - i DEFINITELY noticed a personality difference in the guys that preferred the "we can't lose ever" game to my game...
ANd maybe that's really the central point/ question - I wonder how many "role playing" games are games called so only because the characters ARE in effect the story -
and i wonder how much the appeal of being "the chosen one", special, is of these games.
As an aside, in "traditional" RPG's , often the recurring theme was "rags to riches" - being a nobody or near-nobody, and making ones-self a lord ( or what-not ) - or, more frequently, dieing in the attempt.
Some people were ok with that, some can't stand it. - different tastes.
Please don't flame me if i said something horrifically offensive, I'm not trying to say "this way" or that way is better, I am, on the other hand, interested in looking at why these different approaches appeal to people.
