You collect and battle monsters? It's a thing that exists?
That's the kind of RPG definition Bethesda's fanboys fall back on to justify how their newer games are RPGs. It's more than that, it's also about playing a role and learning to overcome the weaknesses of that chosen role while being able to use their strengths (i.e a genius with limited endurance, a brawny powerhouse with no luck etc.).
Nope, they just saying 'play a role', and when I correct them with this--they usually spaz out because it doesn't permit Fo4 or 76 to be an RPG.
Learning to overcome weaknesses and use strengths is overly specific. There are other roles than those centered around progression. As I've stated before, people are just associating nonessential elements of early tabletop and videogame RPGs with what it means to be an RPG. The idea that RPG videogames must permit only certain kinds of roles is just wrong.
I've also said this before: language is fluid, but logic is not. The only logical definition for "roleplaying game" is one with roleplaying gameplay. Roleplaying is a functional genre, it isn't subject matter. Like first person shooting, it's what you do. It's not something that dice does, or that an algorithm does. In other words, if it can happen without a player, then it's not an action which is what roleplaying by any definition is.
That is not random at all
I see we're now talking about everything except the RNG itself. What an odd way to concede the point. And here I was going to ask for an official definition of roleplaying that even mentions randomness.
Now, if RPGs depended on player physical skill, and the character is supposed to be a master swordsman, but the player sucks at controlling the character in combat, how is that roleplaying? You can pretend all you want that your character is a master swordsman, but since the character in the game is being controlled by a player that sucks at fighting enemies, that game will show a different character.
In those games (that depend on player skill for what should be character skill), you can't roleplay a character that doesn't have the same "skills" as the player.
You're roleplaying yourself with a different name in a different "world", you're not roleplaying your character.
So the game can make a mistake for the player and it's roleplaying, but when the player is actually involved in the process it stops being one? This is some Taoist level doublethink. I'm actually impressed.
Regardless, there's no reason to think that the limitations of the player should not be at play. Partly because there is literally no way to do that (they still have to build there character and make decisions), and partly because we're talking about roleplaying, not about being given a role to play. If the game decides your fate, then it's giving you a role. If you decide your fate, then you might be roleplaying.
Having some RPG elements doesn't mean your game is a RPG. A game to be a RPG has to be it at its core...
Your error is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Don't be too down on yourself, I see it quite often.
This is bogus. The stats define [to the engine or other players] the extents and ability of the player characters; without them it's all just a virtual "Let's pretend".
Roleplaying isn't pretending, but it is rolling dice? Interesting. So either you can't roleplay with just your imagination, or roleplaying games aren't about roleplaying. Honestly guys, you're just making it easy for me.
Exceptions disprove necessity. If you say 'we need X' and I show you how it can be done without X, then obviously we don't need X. Honestly, the amount of effort being put into misunderstanding things is remarkable.
Now if they are a life-long thief, accustomed to stealing —to the point of unconscious habit... should they even have a choice?
(Is that not out of character if they do not?)
Here I can see the need for a reverse stat check in order to not steal as typically the character is wont to do... unless they are intelligent enough to know to choose a better time than their present (dangerous) situation. Some RPGs have this; especially those with character phobias, and other mental conditions, that would cause the character to regularly succumb to their affective disorders.
It sounds like you want the game to play itself for you. If we take that to its logical end then we'd have a sim.
Now we have people doing mental gymnastics to try to say certain games with RPG elements are full RPGs and not just action games with RPG elements.
RPGs must be pure, but not action games. Jeez, I'll be here all day if I respond to all this nonsense. Such is the nature of herds.
