Ok, catching up... and I still see a great divide, as drool put it, more like axiomatic separation here.
In a table-top RPG, roleplaying is a descriptive concept; the DM decides what is and isn't possible.
In a CRPG, the program is hard coded with defined ruleset, and so classes and abilities are prescribed
. You can't just do anything because you're truly "role-playing" your character. If it's a definition of a character, you can do it (with a chance at success or failure). But if it's not in the character's definition, you simply cannot even attempt
to do it.
gizmo wrote:No it is not. Roleplaying is extrapolation of a native's behavior... not taking their place in the situation. Not Costume Quest. (Yes you are ~essentially playing with chessmen, in the sense that a Knight can only act as a knight, and not as a bishop.)
But... from what you were describing about pickpocketing, it sounds more like "well, if the knight wants to move diagonal a few spots, that should be an option so he can try and fail". But then, knight movement is no longer a rule, just a guideline. But it is a rule, because that's the definition of a knight. And chess reflects that - every piece 'type' is defined by their abilities. A fighter cannot pickpocket. It's simply not -prescribed- by the character class.
gizmo wrote:The character is there, the player is not, and the player's only influence in the game should be what is achievable to the PC.
Yes? That's what I'm saying... =/
gizmo wrote:Those games [with a leveling system, experience points, skills/attributes/hitpoints etc that go up] are on rails
O_O Yowza, you've got a very different concept of 'rails' than we do then
I know you're referring to plot options - but man, Bard's Tale was not a game on rails. Not, at least, strictly speaking. It would have to depend on what you subjectively consider too "linear" a gameplay experience. The only linearity in BT were certain plot points, certain game elements, that had to completed in sequence. -Everything- else offered a completely different experience, right down to random encounters potentially defining your success or death.
gizmo wrote:What's the point of choices if nothing comes of it?
In BT, the options are pretty much whether you're successful or not at any encounter or task; sure, the main plot arc doesn't change based on your choices, but there are -so many option- by which to proceed through the game, in your own way, based on your party construction, character development choices, and navigational tactics.
gizmo wrote:Ever played a pirate that can't swim?
If the pirate's character sheet lists swimming as a weakness, then having him swim would be met with failure or at least minimal success. We're saying, if a pirate [class] shouldn't swim, then it shouldn't even be an option (in any manner; even phobia) on the character sheet (in the digital game, which is very different from a table-top rpg).
gizmo wrote:~these are [effectively] no different than class limits like Clerics not using swords... even if you tell them too.
Not really. In a digital game, the software has to give you defined options. In a table-top, you can request pretty much anything, so the DM needs some guide for how to respond to the request. In a CRPG a cleric can simply not be allowed to wield a sword (instead of attempting to and failing every time). The game has to tell you what you can or cannot do - it's not imposing, it's simply a ruleset. You've already chosen a class knowing its ruleset, so why would you want
to (and thus be denied) do something it cannot do? I agree that for the table-top style RPG, it should be possible. But not a CRPG; at least not in a [classic] Bard's Tale experience.
That's IMO. So feel free to disagree about wanting to see that in BT4
But we do have very different ideas, clearly, about what "role playing" is, and to what degree player agency has in determining what a PC can or cannot do (as defined by the flexibility of the system and the nature of the "dungeon master" - human or software).