ZylonBane on 26/8/2009 at 15:11
Quote Posted by Papy
When I role play, I do not "build a character", I am the character. Are you saying that what I do is not role playing?
If you're playing as yourself, you are by definition NOT role-playing. It's really that simple.
DDL on 26/8/2009 at 17:02
Not really.
If he was playing as himself, a guy who spends his spare time sitting at a computer playing games, who was suddenly thrust inexplicably into a multilevel conspiracy in the world of 2072, you'd be getting closer to what you're implying.
But that's not the case, it's "playing as himself, if he was suddenly in the body of a nanoaugmented secret agent who was suddenly thrust inexplicably into a multilevel conspiracy in the world of 2072".
Small difference, but an important one.
As a perhaps clearer example, "I'm playing myself, only now I'm a wizard" is still valid roleplay. Lazy roleplay, but valid. You generally get a better experience if the character you create is different in viewpoint and ethos and whatever from yourself, but that doesn't mean failing to do so isn't roleplay.
heywood on 26/8/2009 at 17:39
Quote Posted by Chade
I don't think so. I think that moment was unusual, and it's not just me who thinks so. Despite everything they did to encourage the player to betray unatco, it still seems like a lot of people have complained about that moment. Once the player gets used to having even just a small amount of power, it's difficult to take that away.
I agree they could have handled it better. Perhaps they could have designed the level in such a way that if you don't send the signal, your action or inaction allows the signal to be sent anyway by somebody else, and UNATCO still decides you're a traitor.
Anybody who still wanted to side with UNATCO up to that point would probably be genuinely pissed off at being falsely accused.
ZylonBane on 26/8/2009 at 18:16
Quote Posted by DDL
Not really.
Yes, absolutely really. This isn't subject to debate. "Role-playing", as used in the tabletop RPG community, quite specifically denotes the act of acting as a character with a personality
other than yourself within the presented situations. This is a large part of why D&D's alignment system exists, so the DM can smack down players who commit acts that are out of character. Consistently playing characters that are just yourself, but with a sword, is frowned upon.
Thus, games like the original DX allow you to decide what kind of man JC Denton is, and roleplay him that way. Granted this approach takes some self-control, since the game won't enforce your characterization choices, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for most people.
DDL on 27/8/2009 at 12:01
Do you actually have a citation for that, because to be honest that sounds idiotic.
You're suggesting that of five people around a table, all with character sheets and all with dice, all playing various dwarves, elves and half-orcs or whatever, imagining their epic quest to find some macguffin or other, the guy who isn't pretending to have a different personality as well as all that other shit is somehow not roleplaying AT ALL?
And in fact, that is the ONLY determinant?
So if four of them were playing "guys sitting around a table talking and rolling dice", but WITH DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES OMG, and a fifth was playing a half dragon fighting skeletons in a dungeon via the twin approaches of imagination and dice rolling, but his halfdragon had the same personality as him, HE'S the one not roleplaying?
Even if that somehow DOES turn out to be the official line on this, it's still idiotic, and I very much doubt anyone would ever use that as a stipulation. Things like alignment systems are there as a helpful guideline so you CAN play someone with a different personality, not so you MUST. The fact that you're imagining yourself as a fucking half dragon fighting skeletons in a dungeon (or whatever) should be more than sufficient.
Cobra on 28/8/2009 at 02:33
*lurk mode disengaged*
Been a while since I've been here. My last activity was centered around trying to Alginon DX2 (can't be done, although I might resurrect it sometime.) So I know the problems with the game better than worst.
Why IW was a failure.
1. Plot. IW was badly written - firstly in the sense that the overall plot itself was generally tepid and uninteresting and the characters were awful, but secondly in that the game didn't ever seem to try and present them well. First example for plot is having the game start in medias res with the destruction of your hometown, and then everyone acting consoled because you lost your parents - so what? Why should the player care? The simple addition of putting the tutorial in Seattle and chatting to your family would have given some affect when the place goes up in nanogoo. For characters, ZB said it best: the two AIs are the most interesting characters. All the other characters seem to only give you quests or get in your way, and most of them just piss you off.
2. Too small. IW was broadly too small, in content as well as mapping. The 'they removed skills!' is an irrelevance. The real problem is that everything you do as a player lacks scope and resonance. In DX, I got to chase NSF 'terrorists' through battery park, through the underground, out to the airport, and tracked down their leader on a 747 in a huge f-ing airport. I got to blow up a superfrieghter full of enough virus to infect an entire continent. I got to get a nuke to land where I wanted it to. What exactly did I get to accomplish in IW? I went places, killed things, and ... err ... I can barely remember why I was doing it, let alone the significance. The maps not having enough scale were symptomatic of this.
3. Too easy. Any challenge in IW faded - the gameplay was a boring hunt to make sure your ammo was topped up through most of the game, with the difficulty of the enemies not being actual risk of death, but an increased rate of ammo expenditure to kill them. Playing on realistic in DX meant that anyone with a gun had to be taken seriously, and many of the top tier enemies (MiBs, Commandos, Bots) often had to be planned around. IW also had lots of easy exploits (see visual walkthroughs for the 'find a repair bot and then spam spy bots to kill everything it can reach, as emp now damages people too.) Ironically, the time I had fun playing IW was when I was trying to do it alginon, as I had to sneak around opponents rather than shooting them in the head (or two bolts if you don't want to kill) or tossing an emp - I had to come up with strategies like tempting someone to follow me into a gas trap, and so on. Playing normally, you just clear the level, activate the macguffin, and go to the next loading zone. Speaking of which, the maps were always too small to give a sense of grand scale.
4. Too linear. Despite this, IW could have remained a good game if it stuck with the sandboxy feel of Seattle and Cairo. But it soon lost even this and turned the rest of the game into a long and boring shooting gallery.
Or so I think.
Enjoy life.
Papy on 29/8/2009 at 05:59
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Yes, absolutely really. This isn't subject to debate. "Role-playing", as used in the tabletop RPG community, quite specifically denotes the act of acting as a character with a personality
other than yourself within the presented situations.
Oh yes it is subject to debate. D&D is called a role playing game, not an acting game. Why do you think this is the case?
Before D&D, role playing was a tool used by psychologists and it was never about imitating someone else. It was either a tool for introspection or something to help understand a different point of view, as in what would you do if YOU were in that situation (and it is obvious, you will never understand a different point of view if you just imitate what someone else does). Of course imitating someone else (acting) is a valid way to play a game like D&D, but saying this is THE way to play D&D is plain bullshit.
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
This is a large part of why D&D's alignment system exists, so the DM can smack down players who commit acts that are out of character. Consistently playing characters that are just yourself, but with a sword, is frowned upon.
D&D alignment exist because the rule set needed a simplistic concept of morality, not because it is a requirement for role playing. As for being frown upon... A lot of things are frown upon by a lot of people. So?
DDL on 29/8/2009 at 13:26
By that definition, so is just "living by civilised societal norms", so I'm not sure it's terribly useful.
I mean, I see your point, but I'm much happier with "it's roleplay, but frowned upon coz it's shitty roleplay" rather than "it's not roleplay".
If you see what I mean.
Blaze on 29/8/2009 at 20:22
About Garrett being a villain: Have you ever heard of the term antihero? Because that's what Garrett is IMO.
I still fail to see why this means that acting as someone with personality really similar to mine in a given situation is not role-playing.
