The case for a sequel

[Woolfe]

If you want to play it that way, sure. Personally I have no problem seperating my characters from each other.

While I'm generally of the opinion that being a GM is something that can be learned and is not inherent to anyone, this may be one of the defining skills that separates true GMs from the still-learning. Having been a game master for several decades now, the skill of holding disparate (and often conflicting) character personalities in my head comes close to second nature for me now. For those with less experience doing so, which likely includes all gamers from the 90s on with no table-top experience behind them, I could see how this could be an alien concept, and thus why those of us arguing for it might be hard to understand.

^^This^^. It explains why it seems that the definition of "roleplaying" differs from generation to generation. I grew up with "roleplaying" meaning to try to figuratively put yourself in the character's shoes and play as _him_, complete with foibles and weaknesses, as well as strengths and talents. Such as, if the character has only a 5 IQ/INT, then try to be that dumb (as opposed to behaving like he has _my_ IQ). More modern gamers seem to believe that "roleplaying" = "What would _I_ do in that situation?"

Thats what roleplaying is as far as I am concerned. The idea of extending it to multiple characters is not to me that complex. But in the past I have been a GM, and I have played in several Roleplaying games at once. I also played a lot of Wargames, that whilst not technically requiring me to give personality to characters, I often did, and would play them as their personality dictated.

[paultakeda]

^

And yet the threads on picklist personalities and backgrounds continue to vex me. It really does feel like a generation gap, doesn't it? I just hope that what inXile meant by "classic RPG" means we are getting what we expect instead of more of the same. I like playing a named hero with a cadre of fawning NPC companions every once in awhile, but I truly miss making a full party that I get to role play myself. And I don't want to play an old game to do it -- I want a modern game with modern graphics and modern sophistication, but with that classic creativity.

The comments on P&P mechanics being a waste of processing cycles and how a character sheet is boring without a preset personality just leave me feeling old and nostalgic; and hopeful that in those areas, Fargo misses what I miss, and the game stays true to that classic genre.

[Woolfe]

^

And yet the threads on picklist personalities and backgrounds continue to vex me. It really does feel like a generation gap, doesn't it? I just hope that what inXile meant by "classic RPG" means we are getting what we expect instead of more of the same. I like playing a named hero with a cadre of fawning NPC companions every once in awhile, but I truly miss making a full party that I get to role play myself. And I don't want to play an old game to do it -- I want a modern game with modern graphics and modern sophistication, but with that classic creativity.

The comments on P&P mechanics being a waste of processing cycles and how a character sheet is boring without a preset personality just leave me feeling old and nostalgic; and hopeful that in those areas, Fargo misses what I miss, and the game stays true to that classic genre.

Prior to getting on these forums, I wouldn't have thought the generation gap was that big. I still don't really. Its not so much a generation gap, as a generation difference. In my day the people who played P&P rpg and Computer games were somewhat cut from the same grain. They tended to not be the hugely popular kids(though some were) etc. Whereas today, Gaming is so mainstream that it is bigger than the Movie industry. That is saying something. So I bet you there are still a lot of kids, the same kids who would have been us in our day, that are willing, to try this, or who appreciate the idea without prior experience, but they are lost in the greater numbers of people who are just generally into gaming.
It is frustrating, as I think many of those people would end up enjoying the game just as much if they allowed themselves to try something outside of the usual.

And Yeah I too want a classic creativity and sensibility type game, with modern graphics, modern sophistication, modern balance, modern technology etc.

[CaptainPatch]

I think that the inherent problem that can't be easily reconciled between P-and-P RPGs and CRPGs is that by their very nature, P-and-P RPGs are a social activity. When the player is actually "roleplaying" (in the original sense), he's performing for an audience that can see and appreciate what he is doing and how well he is (or isn't) doing it. With a CRPG, who beside yourself is in a position to see -- and appreciate just how well you are roleplaying a character that has Attributes seriously different from your own? My experience has been that almost invariably, despite how intricate the back story I create for my characters, sooner or later all, all of them start behaving along the lines of "What would _I_ do in that situation?"

[TΛPETRVE]

I think that the inherent problem that can't be easily reconciled between P-and-P RPGs and CRPGs is that by their very nature, P-and-P RPGs are a social activity. When the player is actually "roleplaying" (in the original sense), he's performing for an audience that can see and appreciate what he is doing and how well he is (or isn't) doing it. With a CRPG, who beside yourself is in a position to see -- and appreciate just how well you are roleplaying a character that has Attributes seriously different from your own? My experience has been that almost invariably, despite how intricate the back story I create for my characters, sooner or later all, all of them start behaving along the lines of "What would _I_ do in that situation?"

In consequence, a P&P session is ultimately more about enacting a scenario than about reaching a goal, especially as the GM is essentially part of the play, too. In a CRPG you're primarily driven by the urge to win the game that provides you with a ruleset, but has no way to interact with you on a personal level.

[Gizmo]

My experience has been that almost invariably, despite how intricate the back story I create for my characters, sooner or later all, all of them start behaving along the lines of "What would _I_ do in that situation?"

I play shooters that way, but never RPGs. You might like watching Tord's Wasteland and Fallout "Lets Play" videos. IMO it's the best example I've seen in cRPG roleplaying.

[Woolfe]

I think that the inherent problem that can't be easily reconciled between P-and-P RPGs and CRPGs is that by their very nature, P-and-P RPGs are a social activity. When the player is actually "roleplaying" (in the original sense), he's performing for an audience that can see and appreciate what he is doing and how well he is (or isn't) doing it. With a CRPG, who beside yourself is in a position to see -- and appreciate just how well you are roleplaying a character that has Attributes seriously different from your own? My experience has been that almost invariably, despite how intricate the back story I create for my characters, sooner or later all, all of them start behaving along the lines of "What would _I_ do in that situation?"

Interesting, I don't tend to do that.

When its a single player character game, then I tend to play "as me" unless I am specifically doing something different.

Whereas in a multi pc game, I usually have 1 or 2 characters that are "as me" in a way, whilst the others are specifically different.

So if I want to respond as me, I tend to do it as one of the "as me" characters, whereas at times I may want to give some sort of different response that "I" wouldn't consider. So usually I'll scan the responces and if something looks appropriate I'll take it. Especially in the situation that I have one of the "other" characters communicating separately.

[CaptainPatch]

In a CRPG you're primarily driven by the urge to win the game that provides you with a ruleset, but has no way to interact with you on a personal level.

Exactly! Trying to _win_ by doing whatever it takes. For example, in Mass Effect Any Number, I design a Commander Shepard that is Super Good Guy or Commander Badass or whatever. I may start out playing them as designed, but fairly soon I am picking my dialogue responses on the basis of "Which choice is likely to give me the best advantage?"

[Woolfe]

In a CRPG you're primarily driven by the urge to win the game that provides you with a ruleset, but has no way to interact with you on a personal level.

Exactly! Trying to _win_ by doing whatever it takes. For example, in Mass Effect Any Number, I design a Commander Shepard that is Super Good Guy or Commander Badass or whatever. I may start out playing them as designed, but fairly soon I am picking my dialogue responses on the basis of "Which choice is likely to give me the best advantage?"

I never did that. I always tended to play as the Paragon, because for me, they were the choices I would make. I actually stopped using the "renegade" choices in ME 2 because too often they did some way over the top nasty shit, that I just wouldn't do. I would still get some renegade, because in some cases I make renegade choices (see slavery conversation ) but overall I tend to do the "nice guy"/ within the law thing, even when I am operating outside the law.

But in a multi pc it was different, because I always had my "me" payers to choose from, but I also had the "not me" players to pick stuff as well, and it didn't feel like I was doing the wrong thing. So PC1 wouldn't push a bad guy off a cliff to prove a point, but Pc 4 might, and Pc1 might disapprove, but no tears will be shed for said bad guy.

[CaptainPatch]

So PC1 wouldn't push a bad guy off a cliff to prove a point, but Pc 4 might, and Pc1 might disapprove, but no tears will be shed for said bad guy.

Ah, but you see that is where you are fudging by doing what _you_ want to do (kill a Bad Guy) by letting Badass You PC4 do the killing and instead of reaming out PC4, Good Guy PC1 decides to rationalize, "It was only what the guy deserved anyway." In Real Life, such an act would be a deal-breaker for PC1, because he'd be asking himself, "Can I allow myself to continue to work with a proven vigilante murderer?"

[Woolfe]

So PC1 wouldn't push a bad guy off a cliff to prove a point, but Pc 4 might, and Pc1 might disapprove, but no tears will be shed for said bad guy.

Ah, but you see that is where you are fudging by doing what _you_ want to do (kill a Bad Guy) by letting Badass You PC4 do the killing and instead of reaming out PC4, Good Guy PC1 decides to rationalize, "It was only what the guy deserved anyway." In Real Life, such an act would be a deal-breaker for PC1, because he'd be asking himself, "Can I allow myself to continue to work with a proven vigilante murderer?"

In real life I am not a desert ranger roaming a dangerous wilderness. And you forget, there is no law, to be a vigilante, you have to take the law into your own hands.

[CaptainPatch]

In real life I am not a desert ranger roaming a dangerous wilderness. And you forget, there is no law, to be a vigilante, you have to take the law into your own hands.

Are you kidding? The Desert Rangers are pointedly a Lawful organization, working towards re-establishing the Rule of Law.

...they felt compelled to help other survivors rebuild and live in peace.

Summary execution is far too whimsical an act to be tolerated by the Desert Rangers. How can you impress upon others that _they_ should adhere to the Rule of Law when their own personnel are known to literally "take the Law into their own hands" when the mood strikes them?

[The Enemy]

Are you kidding? The Desert Rangers are pointedly a Lawful organization, working towards re-establishing the Rule of Law.

Summary execution is far too whimsical an act to be tolerated by the Desert Rangers. How can you impress upon others that _they_ should adhere to the Rule of Law when their own personnel are known to literally "take the Law into their own hands" when the mood strikes them?

Maybe YOUR Desert Rangers were like that. My Desert Rangers have consistently summarily executed everybody in Spade's Casino every year for two decades running.

[Gizmo]

I hope Ranger HQ has MPs and/or can strip rank in this game.

[CaptainPatch]

Are you kidding? The Desert Rangers are pointedly a Lawful organization, working towards re-establishing the Rule of Law.

Summary execution is far too whimsical an act to be tolerated by the Desert Rangers. How can you impress upon others that _they_ should adhere to the Rule of Law when their own personnel are known to literally "take the Law into their own hands" when the mood strikes them?

Maybe YOUR Desert Rangers were like that. My Desert Rangers have consistently summarily executed everybody in Spade's Casino every year for two decades running.

And how does that make the Desert Rangers any kind of improvement over any generic raider gang? Is your idea of "peace" derived from "Rest In Peace"?

[Lucius]

Maybe YOUR Desert Rangers were like that. My Desert Rangers have consistently summarily executed everybody in Spade's Casino every year for two decades running.

You too?

@CaptainPatch
Personally, I do it because it's fun as hell, albeit out of character for how I play my ranger party.

[The Enemy]

Are you kidding? The Desert Rangers are pointedly a Lawful organization, working towards re-establishing the Rule of Law.

Summary execution is far too whimsical an act to be tolerated by the Desert Rangers. How can you impress upon others that _they_ should adhere to the Rule of Law when their own personnel are known to literally "take the Law into their own hands" when the mood strikes them?

Maybe YOUR Desert Rangers were like that. My Desert Rangers have consistently summarily executed everybody in Spade's Casino every year for two decades running.

And how does that make the Desert Rangers any kind of improvement over any generic raider gang? Is your idea of "peace" derived from "Rest In Peace"?

Actually, quite honestly, I do this for two reasons:

1) Roleplaying. By the time my Rangers have gotten to Vegas, they've been randomly ambushed by street gangs, nearly drowned in a sea of blood, accidentally killed a child in self defense, fought a few horribly disfigured ... things, been heavily irradiated, and have seen an innocent woman blown to bits from ten feet away when their bomb disarm skills weren't good enough to save her ... all in the course of trying to save humanity from an extremely vague threat.

And they get to this place full of prostitutes and drunks and shady high rollers and a bunch of guys who look like Krellen and everybody's giving them the eye because they don't have a lot of money and THIS is who they're risking their lives every day to save? Really? So the Rangers split up to investigate the place and maybe one of the high rollers bumps into the most hotheaded Ranger (who had a interest in Christina, which sadly never reached fruition because she got killed by a Warroid Mark 3 just two days ago) and says "Excuse you" and the Ranger is like "Sorry, did you really mean to say 'excuse you'?" and the high roller is like "You're right, I meant to say FUCK you" and throws a drink in his face and the Ranger cracks him over the head with the butt of his AK97 and suddenly the whole place goes hostile!

2) Like Lucius said, it's fun as hell.

[paultakeda]

Actually, quite honestly, I do this for two reasons:

1) Roleplaying. By the time my Rangers have gotten to Vegas, they've been randomly ambushed by street gangs, nearly drowned in a sea of blood, accidentally killed a child in self defense, fought a few horribly disfigured ... things, been heavily irradiated, and have seen an innocent woman blown to bits from ten feet away when their bomb disarm skills weren't good enough to save her ... all in the course of trying to save humanity from an extremely vague threat.

And they get to this place full of prostitutes and drunks and shady high rollers and a bunch of guys who look like Krellen and everybody's giving them the eye because they don't have a lot of money and THIS is who they're risking their lives every day to save? Really? So the Rangers split up to investigate the place and maybe one of the high rollers bumps into the most hotheaded Ranger (who had a interest in Christina, which sadly never reached fruition because she got killed by a Warroid Mark 3 just two days ago) and says "Excuse you" and the Ranger is like "Sorry, did you really mean to say 'excuse you'?" and the high roller is like "You're right, I meant to say FUCK you" and throws a drink in his face and the Ranger cracks him over the head with the butt of his AK97 and suddenly the whole place goes hostile!

2) Like Lucius said, it's fun as hell.

And this is why I fail to comprehend arguments for archetypes/personalities because otherwise the rangers would just be character sheets, because your rangers sound awesome.

[Woolfe]

In real life I am not a desert ranger roaming a dangerous wilderness. And you forget, there is no law, to be a vigilante, you have to take the law into your own hands.

Are you kidding? The Desert Rangers are pointedly a Lawful organization, working towards re-establishing the Rule of Law.

...they felt compelled to help other survivors rebuild and live in peace.

Summary execution is far too whimsical an act to be tolerated by the Desert Rangers. How can you impress upon others that _they_ should adhere to the Rule of Law when their own personnel are known to literally "take the Law into their own hands" when the mood strikes them?

Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs.... I'd rather break the bad ones personally

[CaptainPatch]

1) Roleplaying. By the time my Rangers have gotten to Vegas, they've been randomly ambushed by street gangs, nearly drowned in a sea of blood, accidentally killed a child in self defense, fought a few horribly disfigured ... things, been heavily irradiated, and have seen an innocent woman blown to bits from ten feet away when their bomb disarm skills weren't good enough to save her ... all in the course of trying to save humanity from an extremely vague threat.

There's a number of things wrong with this presentation: 1) "accidentally killed a child in self-defense" is a crock. You can literally Run past Bobby and he NEVER touches any member of your party. Just because you are automatically entered into Combat mode does NOT mean that you ever have to pull the trigger. The choice to do so was entirely on you. 2) "...seen an innocent woman blown to bits from ten feet away when their Bomb Disarm Skills weren't good enough to save her" has everything to do with the party's shortcomings. If the Skills were lacking and you really, really wanted to be sure she survived, why didn't you accept Ugly's deal and get the disarm code? After all, how hard would it have been to track Ugly down later -- _after_ you had saved Felicia -- and deal with him then? It was _your_ choice to put her life at risk. 3) "...all in the course of trying to save humanity from an extremely vague threat." When you hit Vegas, all you know is that there are killer robots turning up. There is literally NOTHING at that point to suggest that you are dealing with "a threat to all of humanity". That info comes later.

And they get to this place full of prostitutes and drunks and shady high rollers and a bunch of guys who look like Krellen and everybody's giving them the eye because they don't have a lot of money and THIS is who they're risking their lives every day to save? Really? So the Rangers split up to investigate the place and maybe one of the high rollers bumps into the most hotheaded Ranger (who had a interest in Christina, which sadly never reached fruition because she got killed by a Warroid Mark 3 just two days ago) and says "Excuse you" and the Ranger is like "Sorry, did you really mean to say 'excuse you'?" and the high roller is like "You're right, I meant to say FUCK you" and throws a drink in his face and the Ranger cracks him over the head with the butt of his AK97 and suddenly the whole place goes hostile!

Such a balanced view of the situation. The gambler throws some booze so you're justified to use deadly force?

As a "cure", your party is just as bad as the "disease" it eradicates. What's next? Because you are a Republican, it's okay to execute any non-Republicans, because non-Republicans are just a blight on Humanity? When you set your sights on "saving all of Humanity", you don't get to also pick and choose who is worth saving and who isn't.