>>3865968
He's as wrong as it can possibly get because he associates maximum agency with killing.
Then he's also doubly wrong because just running around and killing NPCs which don't matter and have no or low impact has borderline no agency to it at all.
Agency is about the feeling of control and being able to change the world around you with your actions.

>>3865968
>Posts: 36766
>Joined: Feb 2, '23
holy fucking autism, OP.
now i see why this board has an issue.

>>3865968
What about torture and rape? Killing is good and all, but I need more "agency".

>>3865982
I don't think he's talking about killing random npcs

*kills Emperor*
*gets a game over from the petulant DM*
Bravo, agency

>>3865968
>Agency is about being a murderhobo
That's moronic. The value of being able to kill anyone is a part of "the game will function despite killing anyone", which in turns has value because it means that you can be led to kill anyone (or that anyone can die, because of player involvement or non-involvement). You can have fantastic agency without any violence if you get your brain out of the gutter of "figthing is the only gameplay".

That's like telling someone "yeah if you want to cook some really nice stuff, it's gonna cost a bit", and then he comes back to you, proud of having bought 1200$ of gold sheet, asking when his meal will taste fantastic. Mistaking an enabling (but non-exclusive) condition with a necessary one.

If you can't be a murderhobo, you don't have agency.

>>3866013
Killing a character having consequences isn't really a failure of this principle.

>>3866008
Killing anyone means mostly minor NPCs.
If killing important NPCs doesn't amount to much more than
>you can't complete their quests
or something then that isn't very high player agency.
In fact, allowing to kill anyone typically means almost everyone you can kill has very little impact out of necessity.

Being able to kill someone you might normally not think you can is only interesting if the results are interesting. Or if upon replaying the game you have new information which can allow you to play it differently and changes things in relevant ways.

Besides, killing is one of the least interesting interactions an RPG can have and usually just results in less content.

>>3865968
This is what happens when you don't let your kids play GTA. They grow up to be psychopaths.

>>3865982
He is right but is only looking at a consequence, not the cause.
>Agency is about the feeling of control
Too relative, too nebulous.
>and being able to change the world around you with your actions.
Which permanent removal of potentially key characters is. You either misunderstand what he wrote there or are attempting to troll. If it is the former, not liking him, whoever he is, doesn't mean he can't be right sometimes.

>>3866017
>>Agency is about being a murderhobo
I don't see the OP's screencap arguing in favour of that. I guess screencap OPs really are inexcusable cancer.
Either way, the screencapped post is saying what you do but that one does it in a retarded way.

>>3866047
>Too relative, too nebulous.
Except it's not. Player agency is entirely about the players perceived control of the game world and it reacting to their actions. Agency is not freedom, choice or a hard number.
It doesn't even matter if you 'technically' on paper have a lot of player 'agency' implemented if they players don't perceive it that way.

>Which permanent removal of potentially key characters is
Except not. Killing some random NPC has effectively zero impact on player agency. Killing some quest giver has some limited agency since it removes the quest, but that isn't really a positive or interesting interaction or agency.

Your post makes it seem you either are the OP samefagging or someone that strongly identifies with his stupidity and ignorance.
He made a superficial observation, thinks agency and freedom are the same thing (they're not), thinks one of (if not THE) strongest thing that adds agency is being able to kill anyone. He then goes on to make it clear he is very biased (bad sign, irrational biased people poison any discussion and often make them irrelevant).
He then repeats that he thinks high level of reactivity = being able to kill anyone. Which again hammers home his narrow-mindedness and bias (since it never occured to him that a lot of players don't try to kill everyone and if they don't it has zero impact on them apart from negative things needing to simplify and dumb things down to allow it, which he erronously thinks enhanced it but doesn't even state why).

I could go on, but the poster is a very ignorant and irrational person that fundamentally doesn't understand what agency is or how to achieve it effectively.
His thread isn't even about trying to challenge his belief, but effectively just wanting people to agree with him, circlejerk and subtly give him game tips.
The kind of person you should never ever try to engage in a discussion.

>>3865968
Being able to rape anyone is the ultimate player agency

>>3866061
More text that says little to nothing. You still aren't saying what you consider to be real agency. Provide examples next. Ideally without butthurt causing you to be a passive-aggressive bitch. Yes, my concern about time-wasters (trolling) was reasonable because oh how many of those faggots frequent the video game boards.

>>3866074
>More text that says little to nothing. You still aren't saying what you consider to be real agency.
Literally the second sentence of his post.
I’m increasingly realizing that many posters in /vrpg/ can’t even read. Grim

>>3866078
>the players perceived control of the game world
What does that mean? What is your "perceived control" of posting on 4chan? There are objective things like being able or not being able to post, having superuser (moderator, whatever) functions available or not and so on. This is just pouring on bullshit to pad his posts so they look more impressive to someone who, ironically, can read but not see the essence of what is written or typed.
>and it reacting to their actions
Which do not include one of the most radical actions, permanent removal of a character with the numerous cascades of changes that necessitates to account for. Well, unless they are quest givers, but then it still doesn't matter because it's "not interesting". Yep, you're totally not the same anon and this is totally not trolling.

so is GTA the ultimate rpg according to this since you can kill horders of npcs

>>3866097
Now come up with your own thoughts instead of asking ChatGPT, anon. I give you a 0/10 for this assignment.

>>3866101
>>3866098

File: 1753471979138866.gif (170 KB, 320x240)

170 KB GIF

>>3865968
in skyrim everyone must be non-essential. it's not immersive unless anyone can die and quests can be failed. unless you really plan to do every single quest

>>3865968
I think games should just let you be able to fuck yourself over. Really why should they make it winnable no matter how much of a self-destructive retard you are being?

>>3865968
Is that the codex? God, they were gay in 2006, but they are all super fucking faggoty now. They all suck Todd Howard's micro dick.

>>3866126
No, it's the site that split from the codex

>>3866084
>What does that mean? What is your "perceived control" of posting on 4chan? There are objective things like being able or not being able to post, having superuser (moderator, whatever) functions available or not and so on.
It's a subjective feeling, which you obviously understand, since your very next sentence is attempting to contrast the subjective internal feeling being discussed, by enumerating external objective counter-examples.
>someone who, ironically, can read but not see the essence of what is written or typed.
Ironic indeed.

>>3865968
So this is what they call "the ultimate male fantasy"

>>3866013
Any retard should know that killing an Emperor without the political clout to take the throne is a death sentence.

>>3865968
Morrowind was great in that regard, but it made a mistake of telling you your save was fucked when you killed an essential NPC.
They shouldn't tell you
If you wanna be a murder hobo, fuck you and persist in the doomed world you have create.

>>3865968
yes, this is true. it's what made Fallout so impressive in 1997.

>>3866150
To western RPG players it is a power fantasy which the world revolves around them. The world doesn't progress without their direct input. There cannot be a fail state because they only wanted to use diplomatic methods to play the game, or want to kill everyone they meet and still expect to progress the envisioned scenario.

File: TotalFlayerDeath.jpg (577 KB, 2557x1097)

577 KB JPG

>>3866150
>>3866171
I'm not even fatigued anymore, I'm just exhausted.

File: Screenshot 2025-10-23 150739.png (197 KB, 923x199)

197 KB PNG

>>3866163
I wonder what sick fuck wrote Little Lamplight in FO3.

So this is the website that's sending its 'tards here? Fascinating how the RPG genre attracts extremely strange and lonely people.

>>3865968
In a sense it means developers have to implement ways to progress events without you just talking to characters, yes. That also means WAY more work in modern RPGs.

File: codex_f_DEBIR.png (22 KB, 135x180)

22 KB PNG

>>3865968
>march 6th
what are you doing, op? digging through codex threads?

>>3866203
>codex
This is from a site started by Codex refugees. Scum of the scum.

>ctrl + f
>rape
>2 hits

Good job boys we can close up the thread now

>>3865968
Hero's Adventure is not exactly a beacon of freedom, like 90% of the major questlines are tied to factions that are obviously locked if you're their enemies. Playing as murderhobo gives you the Way of The Samurai-like "congrats, you killed everybody important" ending but pretty much everything else is locked to following the main questline or doing doing side quests that mostly not involve wanton murder (the cops faction early-on gives you a quest to wipe out one of the 3 "evil" factions, but the choice is obvious, as one of them only has one name NPC and they nearly always turn hostile anyway.)

>>3866200
the Codex went to shit because of /v/ refugees in the first place.

>>3865968
I think in a vacuum it's true but defacto it means games will be designed so that NPCs don't matter and there are glaringly obvious failsafe solutions. And no one is going to set out to make BG3 again because the late game is so thrashed because the scope exploded too much in the early content.

>>3865968
i killed every gay i found on my first and only playthrough of bg3

>>3866208
such a place exists?

>>3866127
so they are super based?

>>3866234
Why did anons leave /v/?

>>3866265
Why did goons leave ADTRW?

>>3865968
It tends to be but only because most games use combat and killing as the only actual player interaction with the world

>>3866273
Don't know, don't care and didn't ask. I was curious about /v/.

>>3866265
to get to the cuckdex

>>3865986
How many posts do you think you've made on 4chinz?

>>3866281
>Don't know, don't care
And here we are.

>>3866284
nta but def not a 100 posts per day

>>3866293
and that's just on one of his accounts, you know he has alts everywhere and a discord and obviously posts here. i don't see how he has time to play games at all. fucking crazy shit.

>>3865968
tldr
kill fuck marry as the minimum

>>3866289
/v/ is not something awful you retard.

File: twink getting bullied and(...).gif (1.3 MB, 320x170)

1.3 MB GIF

>>3865988
Aside from ching chong sex games, I can't think of a single video game that lets you rape.

>>3866347
>I don’t understand the question. I did eat breakfast this morning.
You’re when they removed analogies from the SAT.

>play rogue trader in act 3
>have to ask juiced up alien to pretty please violate my disfigured character to start combat while my party huddles in a corner to try to salvage the situation after I am pathetically slaughtered
>play underrail
>press the enter button and kill gorsky for being a needy whiny bitch

>>3865968
No. Especially since Larian just ropes you into the same three endings anyways in its extremely linear game.

>>3866995
But they said there would be over 17,000 ending permutations! They wouldn’t just lie on the internet, would they?

File: 96b8dfc86f0bd76a58358dd6b(...).png (1.06 MB, 640x829)

1.06 MB PNG

>>3865968
Can't we just do this and get it over with, instead of coddling faggy players?

>>3866999
Obviously they are working with technicalities. You can probably think of quite a few games where you can count out the insignificant nothings just like Larian did and count out thousands of ending variations in spite of the games being mostly linear and having only three or four endings at best.

>>3866069
I came here to post this

>>3866069
Is lover's lab skyrim the ultimate rpg?

>>3865968
>/vrpg/ is just a Codex/RPGHQ garbage dump
But yes, he is right.

>>3865968
I wouldn't call being able to kill anyone the "ultimate agency" but yes, it's a step in that direction.
RPG should only have a setting and a lore. The actual plot/story should be made by the player.
The player should decide who to kill, love, ally, recruit, etc.
If not you're basically playing an "interactive" book/movie/anime with combat/exploration minigames inbetween cutscenes. Not really an RPG.

>>3866208
Lemme guess, you're a tranny.

>>3867065
>The actual plot/story should be made by the player.
From what I've seen on /vrpg/, players are awful at it

Players only need agency in so much as the story should not force them into things they morally oppose. That's why nobody gave a fuck about jrpgs not having choices; everyone playing the hero wants to destroy the ancient evil. It is only when they started forcing in subversive degenerate shit that agency started mattering.
Why am I forced to have gays in my party?
Why am I helping this kid that just robbed me?
Why am I helping this drug addict that was giving villagers to a monster for drugs?

In a way it's amusing that they try to force acceptance of the above all at once making them equivalent and further destroying their own message.

>>3865968
Kind of, it certainly helps to roleplay scenarios.

So what reactivity does Morrowind have to killing NPCs?

>>3865968
kinda yes, except children. no player should be allowed to harm children. simple.

>>3866356
Modded Mount & Blade

>>3868373
*laughs in European version of fallout 2*

>>3867178
Not at all, scum, now back to your discord.

>>3867299
They die. There's a warning if you broke the main quest, but there's also an alternate way to finish the game.

>>3868373
Unless you roleplay as a priest of a church that's a stand-in for christcuckery of course.

Players don't need agency if the characters behave in a sane moral manner. This problem only started when the people making the games stopped being sane or moral. Jrpg never had choices and nobody ever cared except these same deviants annoyed by what they saw as their competition. There are so few games that there is no competition between companies. There never has been, it is all in their heads.

>>3865968
I don't know the games he is referencing, but killing should always be an option. Being able to kill any npc you don't like would improve any game.

>>3868373
If we kill all the children, nobody will ever harm them again.
Children are people. Stop trying to objectify them and take away their humanity.

>>3870285
>Children are people
>t. childfree

>>3870282
I don't get what you are even shedding crocodile tears about here. Are you pretending to say all games should be the same? Sounds boring.

>>3865968
>Every questline must have multiple redundancies
That means the killing doesn't give any agency.
Skyrim is fucking 14 years old so it is hard to remember the various ways they do it but I think the basics are having any objects you could get from an NPC by talking to them be obtainable from their corpse and being able to simply go directly to a fortress and chance across prisoners without needing to have talked to some NPC to be told to save them.
Like you can have a wanted poster and a bounty office and a bunch of NPCs telling you to go slay a monster but the monster should just be there whether or not you see any of that, and if you find the people after they should still reward you.

>>3870291
No I'm saying the exact opposite. All this wrpg vs jrpg or turn based vs action and all the rest is nonsense. People play multiple games and these arguments are trying to force them to be the same which can only mean a smaller audience.

>>3870292
>Skyrim is fucking 14 years old so it is hard to remember the various ways they do it
They do it by making it impossible to kill anyone whose death the developers thought inconvenient. They’re flagged as “essential” and can’t die.

>>3865968
>ultimate
debatable but its super important for sure, if a game doesn't allow you to do that then it does not value player agency

>>3870296
That's because none of this is about games or influencing games or making games or what an RPG is. It's about getting attention online.

>>3865968
fucking larian fag, he defended the inane bullshit that was the armor system in D:OS 2 as well

>still no game in which you can rape anyone

Libtards killed innovation.

>>3870642
>t. card carrying commie

>>3870642
All I want is in-depth slavery mechanics in a post apocalyptic RPG.
Is that so much to ask for?

>>3870644
Sounds like micromanagement hell for inferior NPC companions. Slavery is the path of cuckoldry.

File: image.png (7 KB, 228x48)

7 KB PNG

>>3865986
rookie numbers

>>3866239
RPGHQ

at least they provide hosting for mods banned by the gigafaggots at Nexus

>>3865968
what about being able to rape anyone?

>>3871749
wow this must be the first post to bring that up in this thread

>>3871751
codexers have a "tastefully done rape" meme, so they are signalling to each other here.

>>3865968
>muh agency
Fucking zoomers learn a new word from the internet and the rest of the world has to suffer hearing it non-stop.

>>3871431
He's also been there for 16 years, a little more understandable. In 2009 I was only 23.

The ultimate player agency is the game not only not stopping you from making a shit build but punishing you for it and making you live with the consequences of making a shit build for "flavor". A game without agency will handhold you and let your mediocrity carry you just fine, a game with agency will throw you to the wolves and say "you made this bed, now sleep in it"

File: adcx9vnaowr21.png (185 KB, 1139x291)

185 KB PNG

>>3867065
That's great but also not really doable in videogames unless your game is primarily a sandbox. It works in tabletop because the players can just derail the DM's story and make their own (pic famously related), you can't really do that in videogames because of the inherent limitation in how much "making shit up" you can do.

>>3867185
>Why am I helping this drug addict that was giving villagers to a monster for drugs?
In SMTIV the reason for a somewhat similar scenario is "because doing so is keeping the monsters at bay so that they eat only a few people instead of everyone, since the monsters eat the drugs you extract from human brains".
But that game is all about "what version of a shitty world that ultimately can't really be fixed is worth defending to you?"

>>3870644
Rimworld?

>>3871830
the 16 year forum goer has 75 posts a day if we assume that's a recent screenshot while op's retard has 48 posts a day. both are unhealthy.

>>3871845
That's less impressive when you remember that most people don't write a fucking novel in their post, they just quote someone else's and say ^This if they don't have a lot to contribute

>>3871848
>That's less impressive when you remember that most people don't write a fucking novel in their post, they just quote someone else's and say ^This if they don't have a lot to contribute
This

>>3871848
people on actual forums with that many posts often write novels, especially the op's retard, because there are also facebook reaction buttons for his "this" posts.

>>3865968
wrpg players are so creepy dude why are they so obsessed with being able to kill innocent people

>>3871853
This.

>>3866356
God I wish that was me.

I'm making a game now. And this is something I really grapple with. If I allow anyone to get killed I feel like it'll be a lot more work for me. That's not necessarily bad. Question is, is the pay off worth it. I admit I don't like not being able to take people out in games like Skyrim. I guess I fall in the category of, I'm not against some characters not being killable, at least while they play their role in the story. But it should have to be justified, like there's no way around it. Like you can't kill the emperor in Oblivion before he's murdered in the sewers because it just wouldn't make any sense at all. But maybe some random city leaders should be killable. Like a case will have to be made before too casually making characters immortal. We'll see if I change my mind once quests start going in.

>>3866319
We really need to start going after the people who find this kind of lifestyle. aka his parents.

>>3871908
good luck, there are whole welfare states

>>3865968
He's a slope-headed lower animal with no capacity to imagine agency in any terms other than his capability to inflict violence. The ultimate player agency is being able to [verb] any [noun].

>>3871903
you should be able to kill the emperor
he just never gives you the amulet and never sends you to the priory
you never start the main quest, but can still wander the doomed world and do quests etc.
the dialogues don't have to change, NPCs can still assume the emperor was murdered by the Mythic Dawn

just make everyone killable, if you fuck up the game, maybe you shouldn't have been a murder hobo

>>3871903
>>3873117
>if you fuck up the game, maybe you shouldn't have been a murder hobo
Retards will fuck up their game anyway, and they'll make videos and all the other retards will agree with them. And you won't convince them with logic because they're retards and you'll lose a decent amount of money from lost sales.

>>3873123
nah
what most people are not getting is that there is a big difference between Indie devs and AAA devs

AAA companies can care about market projections etc. to maximize profit and attract as many retards as possible, by sacrificing gameplay

but the indie dev is sure to fail if he tries this, because he doesn't have the resources of the AAA dev (marketing etc)

for the indie dev to succeed he needs to carve out a niche and address his game to people who are not complete retards and appreciate this niche
e.g. rpg fanatics

there IS a market for such games
this board and several others like this one prove it
it is smaller but also if the game is convincing it will market itself

people will take it upon themselves to shill the game to others with similar interests

yes it will never be the huge AAA hit that every retard has in his steam library (and hasn't played it)
but the profits will be decent and since the indie devs don't need to share them, they can be a lot

but if the indie dev tries to make a soulless AAA clone, he will fail, because he has nobody to market this clone, and nobody will love the game enough to market it without profit

>>3872998
Try to read the words, monkey bro. It's not about violence.

>>3873123
>Retards will fuck up their game anyway, and they'll make videos and all the other retards will agree with them. And you won't convince them with logic because they're retards and you'll lose a decent amount of money from lost sales.
Retards will buy anything they're told to, look at how well BG3 sold.
Morrowind let you kill anyone, and if you fuck up the main quest, you were warned, and then it's up to you if you want to keep playing or not. There's even a backup alternate route through the main quest to finish the game if your trigger finger is a little too itchy. Game also sold like 4 mil copies, which was quite successful for the time.

File: 20230815130255_1.jpg (250 KB, 1920x1080)

250 KB JPG

>>3865968
1. You can't kill most name characters in most of these games. Outer Worlds breaks in the literal first zone if you attempt this, and you must reload to have them be nonhostile to continue playing the game. BG3 literally just has a game over pop up if you kill huge numbers of characters, and hasn't even considered that you wouldn't want to sleep with half the game's characters.

2. He's right that designing big rpgs this way is a good idea. Though notable not in the outer worlds way of "Oh well after you complete all of their quests the person is involved in THEN you can kill them." that's stupid.

3. It's important to not work around this the Weird West way by making characters totally isolated from everything around them so killing them doesn't matter. It's way more interesting to see someone else take over the shop after the previous guy dies, or someone coming after the player for being a murder hobo.

>>3866017
A well designed RPG supports being a murder hobo through it's design. If you can kill nobody, and kill everybody the game has to be designed in a certain way. You can't do rockstar quest design if every developer is required to make anything they're working on support both.

>>3866038
No, it doesn't. Age of Decadence lets you kill basically every named character you encounter, and it's far better for it. The game has dozens of endings with a wildly branching narrative.

>>3865968
>can’t pick up doodad
>no player agency
What is this guy’s obsession with killing? He makes an interesting point about reactive and dynamic worlds changing based on player actions, but his murder boner gets in the way of any good point he may be close to making.

File: 1594e096fd59fb0fa216c83b8(...).gif (1.04 MB, 200x174)

1.04 MB GIF

The main issue with this is that it doesn't actually result in anything interesting or some neat interaction. It's just the game removing content for you and trucking along, that's it. A huge amount of work for no actual benefit, beyond some weirdo wanting to kill every NPC and walk around in an empty world with no real reactions to it.

>>3873203
It's just an old talking point from the differences between FO2/Morrowind and Oblivion/FO3.

>>3873124
I have to admit you’re swaying me here. I will attempt to make everyone killable. Unless I accidentally back myself into a corner I can’t get out of. But I’ll plan from the start to try and allow it.


Not that I don’t agree with others, it’s not ALL about just killing. But I mean, gotta pick our battles. The killing one is theoretically not super hard to add in. If there are other very enjoyable immersive features I’d be open to them. I was probably going to add relationships as another big feature.

>>3873171
Read these words, dipshit: "Being able to kill anyone is the ultimate player agency"

It's a one-note interpretation of agency, full stop, all the rest of what he wrote is filler text when this is the point he's trying to argue.

>>3865968
I’m not familiar with tabletop RPGs. I’ve heard the word murderhobo quite often but I wonder how GMs will handle one. Realistically speaking the only outcome for a murderhobo character is to be hunted down, or to be recruited by someone if the murderhobo is particularly good at it. But surely it stops being a game about what it was supposed to be, assuming it’s not a sandbox like dwarf fortress. And RPGs usually have party members too, killing in front of them would most likely have you killed on the spot for being a murderer.
I guess you could have an evil path completely apart from the main game? But then why wouldn’t the murderhobo kill them too? I can’t think of many ways to handle those characters.

>>3873323
Murderhobo doesn't mean psycho character killing everyone. It just describes how most tabletop adventurers act, they don't have a home and travel around killing people to solve problems. The most pure Lawful Good Paladin is a murderhobo at the core, if the campaign is set up that way. It's kind of a self-mocking thing where kill=murder.

Usually people don't actually want to kill everyone in these games, they just like knowing that they could, since it gives them a sense of the campaign being under their control.

>>3873326
>The most pure Lawful Good Paladin is a murderhobo at the core
Yup, it’s gaming time.

File: Lawful Good Character.png (503 KB, 779x708)

503 KB PNG

>>3873332

>>3873322
Why are you even here if you can't even read a short text? Basically, the statement is more like: Being able to kill anyone and still complete the game means a game is fully committed to player agency. Maybe another anon is patient enough to explain it to you in detail.

>>3871834
>RPGs are defined solely by high difficulty
Buildfaggots are truly subhuman.

>>3873200
>Age of Decadence
You can't kill random npc # 473 so it's not a real rpg.

>>3873323
murderhobo is a term thrown around by bad DMs

>>3873340
I'm only going to say this one more time: a game fully committed to player agency lets you [verb] any [noun]. Any less misunderstands what the concept of agency means. Limiting it to "killing anyone" is babby-tier game design that's already been done to death and is lame and boring shit for lame and boring people with no imagination.

>>3873651
Dealing death is the number one conflict resolution path in RPGs though, it's what your character, 95% of the time, specializes in. Being able to plumb any sink isn't really in the wheelhouse. Kind of a lame and boring gotcha there.

>>3873644
>murderhobo is a term thrown around by bad DMs
No, it's when players decide to break character just to be wacky and derail. It's different if the character you played was a mass murdering and mentally unstable psycho and a player just deciding to randomly kill characters even though they made some neutral good character that has only done good nice things up until that point.

It's also different in a PnP compared to a videogame. In PnP you force the DM to dynamically adapt what's happening on the fly. In a game this typically just means removing content, because you can't make extreme death rectivity to all characters in the game which could possibly lead to more content.

Its more realistic but realistic doesn't always mean better. You can theoretically kill anyone in the real world if you can overcome barriers of distance and security. But unlike a videogame there are no reloading saves and there's a little thing called fear that keeps most people from doing things like murder.

So if we want to take the realism = better game. We should not only let you kill anyone in the game but if you die in the game the game deletes itself from your computer and you arent allowed to ever reinstall it or replay it. Would a mechanic like that make the game "better" because of how realistic and close to real life it is? After all if we're putting permanent death on the table for all NPCs shouldn't we do the same for PCs too? Make player death more impactful and not just a silly triviality that can instantly be undone with a quick load.

>>3873766
Some of you guys are unnecessarily taking it to the extreme. The smart thing here is that it's a low effort way to substantially increase players' immersion. Morrowind, for example, doesn't really feature many player choices but it let's you circumvent the plot and it's beloved for that. I've been playing Chinese games recently and both Wandering Sword and Crown & Adventure have maps that could be open but are gated behind the main story. The stories however are wacky and immersion breaking. So the most fun I got out of these was trying to get as far as possible without starting the plot. Giving players the option to quit out of any dialogue already goes a long way. The fun in RPGs comes from character building, not from reading some mediocre writer's attempts at drama and humor, or even education.

>>3873792
>low effort way
Absolutely not. It's a lot of work, management and bug testing and fixing to ensure that nothing breaks regardless of who dies and when, while needing to create stats, gear and stuff for every single character in the game.
It's a huge amount of work.

>>3873305
If I ever get to make my game, every NPC will be killable (if you can handle the battle).
But I have a specific character who will be immensely OP and he will one-shot you always.

He will repeatedly warn you not to try and fight him and he will also hint that he has 4th wall breaking powers, if you challenge him after being defeated once.

If you insist, he will not only kill you but nuke your saves and you have to start over.
Imo this kind of funny quirks make an indie game unique, as they would never be approved by an AAA team.

Yes most people will seethe but idgaf, I think it's funny and maybe some people will think so too.

>>3873808
>he will not only kill you but nuke your saves and you have to start over.
>Imo this kind of funny quirks make an indie game unique
Just indie game things

>>3873644
>>3873765
This is a newfag definition of the meme. Originally it was just a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of what adventurers were, on average.

>>3873802
Statting and gearing every NPC in the game would help the feeling of them being in the world, mechanically. Like, the dev then has to justify their power and can't create fiat situations where the party is overpowered in a cutscene. Creates a better game.

>>3873896
It literally doesn't matter and is just a time and money sink.
If you're not doing something interesting with the "kill everyone" meme or that it adds more content (doesn't just remove it) then you shouldn't waste time on it.
Instead you'd be better off focusing that time and money on more meaningful reactivity that actually does something interesting or adds content.

>>3873931
It literally does matter, I just explained how it does. Makes NPC interactions follow in game logic and mechanics. Contemporary developers are just lazy and bad, only concerned with a simulation of a game.

>>3873931
PoE2 already disproved your assertion. Instead of adding the established "kill everyone" feature to the game, the team wasted a large amount of resources on ship combat which didn't work out at all. There ended up being a lot of complaints about certain characters which the game forced you to interact with.

>Muh killing everyone is bad because just killing is le bad!

Has anyone of you mouthbreathers actually read the post?
Being able to kill everyone is simply the vehicle that makes sure devs HAVE TO account for reactivity instead of just going full "yeah we just corridor and railway that shit to such an absurde extent our open world will just be a walking sim essentially as long as you are not doing what we want you to do" which is one of the main reasons RPG's today suck so much. It doesnt matter if you can kill anyone or not but it does matter that NPC's react to your shit and the world in more than one way.
If a game has no reactivity it turns into a movie and all you control is slower, faster, stop and go. Thats also why zoomers dont buy games but simply watch the lets play. Because thats all you get anyway.

>>3873752
>Dealing death is the number one conflict resolution path in RPGs though
Like I said, no imagination.

>>3871903
It works in Kenshi and FNV, and technically in Morrowind (though there it just warns you that you fucked up). It depends on your game whether characters should be killable or not, but if they do, things should happen. Creating consequences will make the world feel way more lived in, such as killing every potential leader of a town putting the town into disarray and its NPCs scattering somewhere else for example.

>>3873326
>Usually people don't actually want to kill everyone in these games, they just like knowing that they could, since it gives them a sense of the campaign being under their control.
This. People only feel good or bad about an action in a game if they had a choice, apologizing to the NPC reflecting on the memorial in FNV only has a moral impact because you could call him a "little bitch like your dead brother" and butcher him on the spot.

In a campaign, knowing that you're helping people because you want to, not because you're forced to, that you could just ignore them, or threaten them to get some information and then kill them to keep their mouth shut, makes the world feel more real.

>>3873968
Weak response, as expected.
It's by far more interesting than passing skill checks or picking options from dialogue trees. I don't know why this is upsetting you. Pray tell, what totally creative gameplay are you envisioning in an RPG?

>>3874005
I agree. Skill checks do nothing for me. I see a lot of people worship them and I couldn't care less. "If you put all your points into lock pick you can pick a lock early!" Wow, amazing. I'm sure that was really cool in 1997 on Ultima 11.

Todd Howard gets shit for this, but I think Radiant AI was a good idea then, and a good idea now. It was just hard to rush. The bits and pieces of it that we got were excellent. And it's what I hope to replicate in my game. Reactions to crime, assault. Random violence. Theft. Npc's conversating among themselves. Different behavior based on weather. Radiant AI and questing is above dialog and action. I'm not anti action but Bethesda is really focusing on it, and letting the heart and soul of the franchise burn out.

>>3874131
>Reactions to crime, assault. Random violence. Theft.
NTA but most of your responses to this guy involve violence.

It's funny you pretend to disagree, but best you could do without violence is
>NPCs go indoors when it rains
wow

>>3874131
and yeah lockpicking which you dismiss is really important in a properly balanced game
not because of what you gain, but because of what you lose

if you invest in lockpicking you sacrifice other stuff like combat ability
of course in a game like Skyrim where balance is a joke it's irrelevant, but in a properly balanced game it matters

not to mention the RP potential it has, it may allow you to solve a quest differently or even block you completely from some quests, e.g. Thieves Guild and such

>>3874140
For the most part I'm just against this kind of gameplay. I've never had fun not being able to get into a door.

>>3874135
Actually yes, wow indeed. Stardew Valley did this on green rain day and it actually really stood out in my memory. That was a scripted event and not radiant AI, but whatever. It was cool to see the towns people gathered together. There are more things you can do. I prefer radiant AI to typical stats and class restrictions.

>>3874131
>>3874143
>Skyrim
>Stardew Valley
Truly creative RPG gameplay. I'm glad your imagination is so profound and not at all lame and boring.

>>3874354
Yawn. Try harder. “You took examples from two of the most beloved RPG’s of all time!” Ya. And? Also I wasn’t making a comprehensive list of creativity. If you want to add examples of Radiant AI that other games have that are so much heckin better than Skyrim, share them. But you won’t. Because you think nagging is a legitimate form of argument.

>>3874518
How lame. How boring.
You don't really care about any of this, do you? You gave up.

>>3874520
Exactly. Just a nagging wench and nothing more. You were given the floor to contribute, and all you do is whine and complain.

>>3874523
Contribute what? I asked what creative gameplay is more interesting to add to RPGs than combat and you came back with fucking NPC schedules and setpiece interactions. There's nothing left but to mock you, because I don't really believe that you care, you're just larping as a tween or something.

>>3874525
>I asked what creative gameplay is more interesting to add to RPGs than combat and you came back with

Did you imagine asking this and then get mad when I didn't respond to your imagined thoughts?

Combat is fun, and I would say it's one of the few areas I like Skyrim over Oblivion. Although I liked spell crafting in Oblivion more. It just seems like combat is getting better and better and radiant AI is getting worse and worse. NPC's need to feel real, unique, important. Otherwise it kills immersion.

File: images (10).jpg (8 KB, 202x250)

8 KB JPG

The true test of player agency isn't how many people you can kill, it's how many you can spare/save

>>3874568
*meticulously uses non-lethal to spare every NSF in the second level, remember we’re police*
*game responds as if you blasted everyone because of an invisible line in the level you did or didn’t cross*
*game gradually phases out non-lethal ammo throughout the later levels because they assume that even pacifist players will go loud halfway through*

>>3874565
No, I didn't imagine it. I'm also not mad, I'd say "bemused". I gathered that you were immurshun focused rather than gameplay focused from the get go.
>Pray tell, what totally creative gameplay are you envisioning in an RPG?
>>3874568
Sparing someone implies that you can kill them though.

>>3865968
I recognise rusty shackleford. Is this some kind of splinter forum from the 'dex?

>>3874577
You did imagine it. Otherwise, quote it.

>>3874606
>please let's talk past each other for 50 posts
Why are you so lame and boring? Like, if you don't want to engage in good faith, then don't. It's cool.

>>3874664
Pure mental illness. Literal schizophrenia and narcissism.

>>3874832
Zoomer banter is so lame and boring with the constant armchair psych larping. Nothing ever gets personalized, it's all boilerplate diagnostics.

>>3874834
Don't try sounding smart. You've been exposed for making imaginary arguments in your brain and that spazzing out that I didn't respond to you. There's no saving it, you're low IQ and mentally ill. You're flailing around trying sound like you're above it all. Like you're too cool to take anything seriously. But you do take it seriously because you MUST get the last word. It's narcissism and delusional thinking. I'm not mentally ill, so this will be my last post on the issue. I've suitably exposed you.

>>3874836
>I'm not mentally ill
Please say this in a mirror 3 times nightly, Ellandbee-san.

>>3874836
Your approach is way too scattershot. Compose yourself next time and you'd actually win cause the other guy clearly has no guts for an argument.

As a neutral observer, you both lost.

>>3874606
>quote it.
This one always gets ‘em

Codex rejects are even more retarded than codex.Who could have guessed?

>>3865968
>muh player agency
Wrong, the games were literally better when they had actual hard narrative and stories. This is why all the classic games are actually remembered and why all the modern-day open-world and muh player agency games get forgotten immediately.

>>3874844
Wasn't Fallout's story "Get a water chip"? More like a good fun setting.

>>3866140
>It's a subjective feeling,
NTA, but I don't think it is. If it were subjective, we should see people in the wild making claims that very linear games like Castlevania and Super Mario Bros have tons of player agency whereas open-world RPGs have no agency.

Furthermore, I think that anon is right about >>3866061. I don't think that definition fully makes sense. It strongly implies that the definition is dependent both on the intent and the active result. It's saying that if a player "perceive" it as agency, it's not, and that to fully be agency the player must feel that the game has "reacted" to them, and it doesn't define a relative point. This definition just basically makes the entire debate and discussion impossible to have in the first place.

What do we do if we're talking about games like Nethack that famously is associated with the phrase "The devs thought of everything!" where the game is highly reactive to the player, but then anon comes in and says "yeah, but I didn't *feel* like I had agency." Are we to discredit the agency? What about the thousands of people who HAVE played the game that claim it is the ultimate in player agency? Who takes precedence? If it's the many, what if it's 2 people vs 1? What about 1:1? What about people who don't even understand what agency even is and claim games like Sudoku has player agency? Are we to include them because they *feel* that way?

No, this definition is utter trite nonsense and unusable.

>>3874840
You're a fucking idiot. You think I give a shit what some retard thinks.

"You didn't respond to my argument about action vs simulation appropriately!"

"You literally never an argument about action vs sim"

You - "Heh, you both lost." Tell me how the fuck I lost retard. Please.

>>3871903
>Question is, is the pay off worth it.
Honestly player agency is usually a huge normie meme. They usually just want to do it to chuckle for a few moments that they "got to smack and important person with a fish as a weapon!" or some other random shit. For the small niche minority of people who want their "choices to matter," ultimately what they really want is a Visual Novel where their important choices change the entire storyline. They don't actually really care that if you kill a dude on the street that their character is locked up in pretend jail for 20 seconds while the screen fades to black and you're presented with text that says "800 years later..."

I've personally always been onboard with Japanese style of just turning off the NPC hitbox. What does killing people really add to the game, exactly, other than "player agency?" Is that really even important? I respect the hell out of games that force me to play it their way instead of letting me neuter the fucking backbone of the experience.

>>3874881
I disagree. Not that you're wrong, you're just clearly a different type of player. Killing the whole town in a massive GTA like rampage is in fact, fun. For some. I appreciate the input though.

>>3874840
You can't have an argument with someone who doesn't, either unwillingly or willing, understand what you are saying in the first place. You're p. dim.

>>3867065
Retarded RPG Codex-tier rhetoric

>>3873962
>Being able to kill everyone is simply the vehicle that makes sure devs HAVE TO account for reactivity instead
They don't have to do shit, retard. The NPC drops dead and maybe your rep takes a hit automatically and every NPC within 200 pixels runs away from you. Then the game is just left stale and dead in that state and nothing reacts anymore. You got what you wanted, it was nice and low effort for them, and they don't have to give a single fuck that you're raging out over how shallow it is because normies just bought 10 million copies so they could "lol I killed this guy" clip farm.

>>3874928
Examples?

>>3874929
Literally every 3D Fallout and Elder Scrolls game.

File: Open World Linear Sandbox(...).jpg (184 KB, 1770x690)

184 KB JPG

>>3874900
>Killing the whole town in a massive GTA like rampage is in fact, fun.
Even if I'm a different type of player, consider this: All you described there was an arcade cabinet game of "kill all the things on the screen."

You're making an assumption that this is binary, when it's a sliding scale. You can have player agency and linearity in different amounts. Going full scale to one side isn't always a good thing.

>>3874930
What what about actual RPGs and not Action RPGs?

>>3874937
Every Roguelike.

>>3874930
>Literally every 3D Fallout and Elder Scrolls game.
That was never true for the 3d Fallouts, and hasn't been true in over 20 years for TES. Now they have many invincible "essential" NPCs, which were originally crucial for the main quest only, but eventually expanded to be any important characters for whose death it would be inconvenient for the developers.

>>3874938
I don't think roguelikes apply to the topic, they don't even have a narrative to impede with any particular NPC's death.

File: hq720[1].jpg (122 KB, 686x386)

122 KB JPG

>>3874944
No?

>>3874945
I'd agree there now that we are getting away from "Every Roguelike", CoQ is probably one of the least traditional roguelike roguelikes in my opinion. Can you softlock yourself in it?

>>3874934
“ kill all the things on the screen”

The things you’re killing however have backstories. Personalities. Different melee and magic types signaling again different back stories. I’ve often interacted with many of them in depth. That makes it completely different than just killing random generic monsters or NPCs. The fun of these games to me has always been in my head. As opposed to JRPGs which are usually interesting for dialog. I don’t have head cannon for FF9. I have endless head cannon for Oblivion and Skyrim and the main character.

I agree that I’m not 100% on being able to kill all characters all the time. Although I am leaning towards, unless there’s a VERY good reason, I will allow it.

>>3874947
Death is a softlock.

>>3874959
>The things you’re killing however have backstories.
So do the aliens in Centipede, and the ghosts in Pac-Man.

>>3874978
>Death is a softlock
Isn't a softlock something that lets you continue playing the game, just in an unwinnable state? I do get these things confused.

>>3874984
How can any game be set to an unwinnable state without corrupting its code? You can always just restart or reload a save, can't you? Therefore the game is always in a winnable state.

>>3874986
> How can any game be set to an unwinnable state without corrupting its code? You can always just restart or reload a save, can't you? Therefore the game is always in a winnable state.
Dumbest /vrpg/ post of the day award

>>3874990
How is it wrong? The state the game is in can be won.

>>3874993
>You can always just restart or reload a save, can't you?
>How is it wrong? The state the game is in can be won.
>The state the game is in
>just restart or reload
If the state of the game is such that it cannot be won without restarting or reloading, then no, the game is not in a state that it can be won. Restarting or reloading would be reverting the game from a state in which it cannot be won, into a state in which it can be won.

>>3874997
But the state of the game IS that it can be won. For example, one time I ran a bad game shark code on my copy of Star Fox 64. It corrupted the cartridge and the game could not be loaded. Therefore, it was in a state that could not be won in, regardless of other circumstances. When you compare it to things like Dark Souls that have a "lose state" of "you actually get sent back to the bonfire and you can still just win," then how can we make the claim that restarting != still in a winnable state?

>>3875003
>But the state of the game IS that it can be won. For example, one time I ran a bad game shark code on my copy of Star Fox 64. It corrupted the cartridge and the game could not be loaded. Therefore, it was in a state that could not be won in, regardless of other circumstances.
You’re playing a semantic game and using a completely different definition of “softlock” than literally anyone else in the universe.

>>3875006
No I'm not. I'm using it by the book. "The game is in a playable state, but you cannot reach the end state." How is a corrupted cartridge that can't load past level 2, or Penn and Teller's Impossible setting not a state in which the game is unwinnable, yet restarting and playing the game to completion isn't a winnable state of the game?

>>3874986
>restart or reload a save
Apart from you not knowing what softlock means, you do realize we were talking about a roguelike, right?

>>3875009
Yes? That never changed, nor does it change what I'm saying. Reloading, restarting, save or new game, at what point is the game in an unplayable state?

>>3875011
See, a "game" is a game in progress, restarting would be a new game. That's why many games have a menu with a New Game option when you load them.

>>3875012
>See, a "game" is a game in progress,
If that's true, what is the "lose" state of the game then? A game has an implied start and end, where you either win or lose, right? So when do you lose in this instance of a "game," and how is that not at all relatable to the entire state of the whole game including the New Game and Continue menus at the load screen?

For example: If I play a "game", decide I'm done, then I save and quit and go to bed, am I starting a new instance of a "game" when I load it back up and press "Load Save"? Does that mean I've lost the previous game, and now I'm playing a new game except I'm starting with a handicap of several items + dungeons cleared?

>>3875014
>If that's true
No, first acknowledge that it is true. This not debatable. A game of chess is a game of chess, a session, while chess is also a game. You need to start from here to understand the concept of saves being a saved state of a game in progress.

>>3875016
>No, first acknowledge that it is true
I can't acknowledge it as true because your definition of a "game" = "game in session" has problems. I genuinely need you to continue reading the rest of that post if you want to nail this definition down.

>>3875019
>I can't acknowledge it as true because your definition of a "game" = "game in session" has problems
It does not. Please acknowledge its meaning through this sentence "Do you want to play a game of chess?".

>>3874978
Sorry you can’t handle people with differing opinions than own.

>>3875027
>It does not
It does.
>For example: If I play a "game", decide I'm done, then I save and quit and go to bed, am I starting a new instance of a "game" when I load it back up and press "Load Save"? Does that mean I've lost the previous game, and now I'm playing a new game except I'm starting with a handicap of several items + dungeons cleared?

What are you defining as "a session"?

>"Do you want to play a game of chess?".
I don't understand how me saying "Yes" or "No" to this changes anything of what I stated.

>>3875031
>>For example: If I play a "game", decide I'm done, then I save and quit and go to bed, am I starting a new instance of a "game" when I load it back up and press "Load Save"? Does that mean I've lost the previous game, and now I'm playing a new game except I'm starting with a handicap of several items + dungeons cleared?
I answered this.
>understand the concept of saves being a saved state of a game in progress
Can you please stop pretending to be retarded? Or at least be funny about it?

>>3875032
>I answered this.
>understand the concept of saves being a saved state of a game in progress
Fair enough, I missed that. But then we need to continue to the second point which you are refusing to answer:
What is the "lose" state of the game session, and what does it mean to continue the "same game?"

If my character dies, and the game offers me a "continue" button, is that a new session of the game, or the same session?

>>3875034
>What is the "lose" state of the game session
Irrelevant, a softlock is "being unable to win", for example killing an NPC that is vital to a quest required to complete the game. Win conditions vary by game.
>If my character dies, and the game offers me a "continue" button, is that a new session of the game, or the same session
It's a reversion to the state the session was in whenever the continue starts you. Take Alpha Protocol, it had checkpoints and I suffered a bug where the boss spawned outside the geometry of the level and even restarting from checkpoint left me unable to beat the game. Or in FO3 I suffered a bug where I couldn't reach the Jefferson Memorial on any save I had. These are softlocks.

>>3875036
>Irrelevant, a softlock is "being unable to win", for example killing an NPC that is vital to a quest required to complete the game. Win conditions vary by game.
In Chess, if I move my pieces in certain ways, like utilizing the "bong cloud", and I'm playing against a player that is taking the game seriously, then I've entered into a "losing" state, yet the game will still be "won." That's why it's important to define what a "lose state" is to the conversation and when you've entered one, so that we can determine when a soft lock has begun.

>It's a reversion to the state the session was in whenever the continue starts you.
Again, more complications because we haven't clearly defined a "session" or a "lose state" here.
1. What do you do with games that don't revert 1:1 into the previous state? For example, if your character dies, then it reloads a checkpoint, but the physics are now different than what they were at the time so that it's raining and maybe rocks were falling that previously weren't, what happened to the previous session? Are you still in it or are you in a new one?
2. How do we determine if the checkpoint or saved games are within or without that session? The game gives you menu options to reload the game whenever you want, so you clearly side stepped that "unwinnable state" and won the game. How could those be softlocks?

>>3874978
>So do the aliens in Centipede, and the ghosts in Pac-Man.

I'm curious, what do you get out being an obtuse piece of shit? A character who talks to you, goes on quests with you, has many branches of dialogue, is clearly different than Pac-man, or a better comparison would be a Ghost from Pac-man.. So why make a post like this? Why be a piece of shit? Are you just embarrassed that you are dumb and take other peoples opinions as an attack on yourself? What's the psychology behind a post like this?

>>3875039
It's not being obtuse. You might think this is semantics, and you're right, but the semantics of this are precisely what we are talking about.

For instance, what do you consider a "decent backstory" and how do you differentiate that definition between others, especially when you put subjective boundaries on it? If you say something like "has a background," then congrats, shittons of arcade games from the 80s fit that definition. So you have to rethink where you draw the line to have the discussion in the first place. Just because you're getting mad and have to resort to personal attacks and fabrications doesn't change any of this.

>>3875038
>yet the game will still be "won."
Yes, this is why "losing" is inapplicable to a softlock. It's about being unable to win.
>it reloads a checkpoint, but the physics are now different than what they were at the time
This is too vague and irrelevant. If the state changes constantly during a session, like upon entering and exiting a building or whatever, that's just part of the conditions of the game.
>The game gives you menu options to reload the game whenever you want
Not all games do. Like roguelikes. But a save is like time travel, reverting you to a previous point in the game you're playing.

You really need to acknowledge that a game is also a "game in progress" or you're just wasting my time.

>>3875040
Ok, you're genuinely retarded, autistic, and discuss topics in bad faith. Good to know. Like I was genuinely engaging and explaining why some people like killing npc's in an RPG. And you come back with trying to argue that Aragons lore from the LOTR is the same as a fucking ghost in pac-man.

"Ummm ahhckyuuually they are both classified as having back stories so technically I'm correct."

Fuck you.

>>3875042
>Yes, this is why "losing" is inapplicable to a softlock.
"The game is in a state where I cannot win, but I can still keep playing." Me playing in Chess against a superior opponent after I made a blunder fully fits the definition, no? Then we also have to consider games with an "end state" but I technically lose, like a bad ending. If we don't know how we lose, how do we know how we win?

Additionally, without the lose state to end the game either, how is it you're able to definitively say "No it doesn't count if you reset your game or select 'new game' from the menu" and assume that this is a new session as opposed to me turning on the power of the console or double-clicking the .exe?
>This is too vague and irrelevant.
>If the state changes constantly during a session
These two sentences create a contradiction. If it's irrelevant, then why does the state even matter, especially if it changes? Isn't the softlock all about preventing the state from approaching the "win" state?

>But a save is like time travel,
>that a game is also a "game in progress"
If I save my game 2 seconds after pressing "new game," then 50 hours later get into an unwinnable "softlocked" state, then reload that previous 2 second save, is this the SAME game in progress or no?

You haven't defined what a session is yet, so we can't determine what is in progress or not. That's the whole problem with you.

>>3875043
>Ok, you're genuinely retarded, autistic, and discuss topics in bad faith
The only reason you think I'm being in bad faith is because you've internalized a feeling you've never explored, and when people are challenging this feeling, you "feel" that "it's so OBVIOUS it should be X, why are you even implying it isn't?"

You're making a assumption, such as "Obviously Aragon's lore from LotR is way better than Pac-Man", but you aren't able to articulate what makes that so other than your own personal preference, so everything that speaks logically against that assumption "is obviously a lie fuck you," when really you just never thought through any logical circumstances around what you're saying.

If you want to continue to assume I'm not engaging with you, then that's on you, but I'm being very good faith here.

>>3875045
>If you want to continue to assume I'm not engaging with you, then that's on you, but I'm being very good faith here.

No you're not, you're a piece of shit and a retard. You have no inability to analyze nuance because you're retarded and autistic. I genuinely hope you, and your family, die of cancer.

>>3875044
>how do we know how we win?
By meeting the win conditions of the game.
>then reload that previous 2 second save, is this the SAME game in progress or no?
I've already said it was, you reverted to a previous point in the game you were playing.

>You haven't defined what a session is yet,
I have. A game of chess is a game, while chess is a game itself.

You're done, man.

>>3875046
I actually don't even think you mean that. I think you're being cheeky and cute. If you want to reply to me later with an actual discussion, I'm still open and won't hold this against you.

>>3875047
>By meeting the win conditions of the game.
How do we know what those are? Especially if we don't know what the lose conditions are?
>I've already said it was, you reverted to a previous point in the game you were playing.
So just to be clear, the act of pressing "New Game" on the main menu of the screen is ALWAYS a new session of the game, and a loaded save state of a game 2 miliseconds after this is ALWAYS the same game session no matter what. Got it.

So is this inclusive of Roguelikes where a new game actually has new unlockables carried over from the previous game states, thereby making your game not actually new? Is it also inclusive of games like Nier where you need to replay the game multiple times to unlock true endings? Or do I need to be erasing my save files in order to actually achieve a "new session" of that game?

>I have. A game of chess is a game, while chess is a game itself.
Okay, how does that apply to video games, or is this just a simple false equivalency?

>>3875048
>I actually don't even think you mean that. I think you're being cheeky and cute. If you want to reply to me later with an actual discussion, I'm still open and won't hold this against you.

I do genuinely want you to die. I'm not saying I would do it of course, I would not engage in violence or anything like that, but if you're like hey man that's not funny, I actually have a rare disease and I'm going to die soon, I would fucking laugh and say GOOD.

Also, please post where I said Aragons lore was better than Pac-man. I said it wasn't the same. You lie about what I say because your stupid ass can't even read.

>>3875049
>I do genuinely want you to die.
Nah. I don't believe you. You're like, what, 22? Probably a twig boy? You're saying edgy shit to provoke a reaction. I'm not that shocked by it.

>Also, please post where I said Aragons lore was better than Pac-man.
The only reason you would use Aragon as an example to counter the Pac-Man Ghost lore is because there is an obvious gulf in difference in class between the two, and you're fully aware of it, otherwise you wouldn't have pointed at it.

It's not like I don't also think Aragon's lore is better than the Pac-Man's Ghost lore. I'm just able to articulate it.

>>3875051
>Nah. I don't believe you. You're like, what, 22? Probably a twig boy? You're saying edgy shit to provoke a reaction. I'm not that shocked by it.

I want you to die, not be shocked, faggot.

>The only reason you would use Aragon as an example to counter the Pac-Man Ghost lore is because there is an obvious gulf in difference in class between the two, and you're fully aware of it, otherwise you wouldn't have pointed at it.

Yes of course there is a difference, faggot. Glad you admit so.

"It's not like I don't also think Aragon's lore is better than the Pac-Man's Ghost lore."

You can't even differentiate someone saying something is better than something, and something saying it's the same/different thing. You're fucking stupid. And that explains the whole conversation. Your dumb brain mushes meanings together and you feel think, because you're a dumbass. Just because something is more nuanced doesn't make it better, but the differences have an effect. Humans are drawn to story, and therefore an NPC with a long backstory is DIFFERENT than a fucking ghost from a game most people don't even know has lore. I'm done here. You're a retard, if you get cancer, please make a thread, post this message, so I can hop in and fucking laugh at you.

>>3875048
>Roguelikes where a new game actually has new unlockables carried over from the previous game states
lmao, you didn't have to be this obvious, I already got the joke and was playing along.
Anyway, I have to do some shit. Cya.

File: Mirium Shrug.jpg (165 KB, 1090x1028)

165 KB JPG

>>3875054
>I want you to die, not be shocked, faggot.
Shrug emoji.

>Yes of course there is a difference, faggot. Glad you admit so.
Functionally though, until you're able to articulate and distinguish it, you can't draw any lines to tell them apart, which is important when you get to edge cases where the line is more clearly blurred.

>You can't even differentiate someone saying something is better than something, and something saying it's the same/different thing.
If there is a difference between something, obviously one of them can be better. There is no such thing as "same but equal".

>I'm done here. You're a retard, if you get cancer, please make a thread, post this message, so I can hop in and fucking laugh at you.
There is a non-0% chance that you and I have had a discussion together before and both of us have enjoyed it. :).

>>3875055
>lmao, you didn't have to be this obvious, I already got the joke and was playing along.
I mean, if this is your definition of a "new session," then I think you should go to speedrunning communities with this. It's going to blow their minds when all those guys who were making sure to delete all files of a game to make sure nothing remains leftover no longer have to do that, because just clicking the words "new game" means it's a "NEW game". Revolutionary, even.

>W-w-wait...I have no arguments left?
>UH I DECLARE I WON AND ALSO I'M LEAVING AND I'M ALSO DECLARING YOU LOST OKAY I HAVE TO GO NOW BYE!
You hate to see it.

>>3875057
No, no, you won. I softlocked. Game can't be won for me. I really have offline duties now.

>>3875058
>Game can't be won for me. I really have offline duties now.
Games not over until you stop replying and enter your lose state. That's the only way you can get to your offline life. Cause I obviously don't have one.

>>3865968
I've felt more freedom going out of bounds in Sonic Adventure than I do killing people in Skyrim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0P-zEBW0bg

>>3875057
Every time you lose an argument you go off topic and act like it’s a reasonable response. Me “I think Pokemon is different than Shakespeare.”

You “Omg you have to articulate why and then take a position that one is better than the other and then back up the claim that one is better than the other and then I’ll complain that it’s impossible to subjectively declare that anything is better than anything because we can’t even prove we are living and not dreaming and what does it mean to live and what does it mean to dream!?” I don’t need to prove existence to say Pokemon is different than Shakespeare you fucking piece OF SHIT.

Seriously, Fuck you. You are not smart just because you can ignore all previous claims and continue on making straw man arguments nobody ever brought up you delusional piece of shit.

>>3875066
>Every time you lose an argument you go off topic
What was off topic about anything I've said so far?

>>3875070
I’m not able to respond until you declare what you mean by “I’ve said”.

What do you mean by I? What is I. Sure on the surface you mean yourself. But what is one’s self? A human body is full of billions of cells of non human bacteria so where does the bacteria end and the human begin? And what do you mean by say? You didn’t open your mouth and say anything. You typed something on a keyboard and electrical signals sent encoded messages thousands of miles away. That is clearly different than opening your mouth. And by being different you must declare which is better because it can’t be different and the same. Until you clarify your message and articulate your thoughts better we can’t sort out the FUCKING EDGE CASES YOU FUCKING FAGGOT.

>>3875072
>I’m not able to respond until you declare what you mean by “I’ve said”.
Okay, then don't respond.

>>3875073
I see you’ve given up. I take that as I’ve won. Thanks. By refusing to define existence, I win.

>>3875074
gottem

>>3875074
You didn't define existence either though. How can you say you've won when you didn't even enter the base qualifications of the discussion? The game has not been played.

>>3865968
>Being able to try to kill anyone is the ultimate player agency
ftfy

>>3873644
Murderhobos exist BECAUSE of bad DMs. The entire reason the stereotypical player exists was because of years of DMs combing over your written backstory and taking pieces of it to use for cheap, contrived drama and "gotchas" like turning them evil, killing them to force a revenge quest, or otherwise using them against them (because if they were GM, it's what they would do, or because all of their previous GMs actually did do this).

>>3875080
by them I meant family members, I should clarify

>>3875080
>Murderhobos exist BECAUSE of bad DMs
As someone who has been a fresh DM for a group of fresh players, and having seen fresh players, this is wholly untrue and retarded. Murderhobos happen because players dissociate from the game world and let their base impulses out on the game with no regards for the consequences of their imaginary on-paper person, even if it means torpedoing not just their own, but the fun of 3-6 other people at the table.

Murderhobo is a player problem.

>>3875077
You are right.
I admit I lost.

>>3875084
No you don't. Don't lie to me. You think you won without putting in the due process.

>>3875083
Please stop using "murderhobo" for "bad player". A murderhobo is just an adventurer.

>>3875110
>A murderhobo is just an adventurer.
lol no, a murderhobo is someone that acts outside the realm of immersion when making decisions for their character. That's a bad player in my book on any day.

>>3875114
No, that's not the meaning, it's just someone who wants to kill monsters and collect loot in a profession founded on the idea of killing monsters and getting loot.

File: 2025-11-15 17_54_41-What (...).jpg (133 KB, 1295x769)

133 KB JPG

>>3875126
We're saying two different words. You're saying murderhobo(affectionate), and I'm saying murderhobo(derogatory). I refuse to stop using murderhobo(derogatory).

>>3875114
>lol no, a murderhobo is someone that acts outside the realm of immersion when making decisions for their character.
Almost all RPG players do this nowadays. No one roleplays. They metagame what will give them the most mechanical rewards, rather than coherently roleplaying a character. Like an erstwhile 'good guy' going, "yes, I completed that quest and got XP and was given a generous reward, buuuut... if I then murder the questgiver, I'll also get the combat XP for killing him, and a little money, too! Time to die!"

>>3875128
You can be wrong all you want. It just doesn't describe what you are talking about. Murder=killing hobo=homeless, that's just an adventurer and there's nothing wrong with that. Bad roleplayer gets at the heart of what you are talking about, like they want to disrupt the game or break other people's roleplay.

>>3875130
>Almost all RPG players do this nowadays. No one roleplays.
As a DM, I agree with you and I fucking hate it. Little off topic cause it's /tg/, but fuck it
>Playing D&D at Adventurer's League.
>For the uninitiated, basically it's coordinated public play with a reputation for scraping the bottom of the barrel of friendless people.
>Playing in a brand new horror-themed campaign in a spooky mansion (Curse of Strahd's intro adventure)
>Guy shows up with a character.
>He has this immaculate and immersive description of him wandering into the mansion, hearing spooky noises, getting into character, and calling out in an impressive character voice with no quirky accent to make contact with the rest of the party. "Is anyone there?"
>Guy at the table who I'm sure was 2 grooms away from going fully trans says "I lean over the rails and say 'Your mother."
>Could actually pinpoint the moment when the light left the new player's eye as he realized what he was in for.
>Never showed up again.
I'll always regret not networking more at the tables and forming a private group.

>>3875133
When people say words though, they're trying to capture specific feelings that are associated with those words. That's why when people say "RPG Elements," they don't mean they are roleplaying as Super Mario in a platformer, they mean that it has a numeric character-based progression system independent of player skill. So when people say "murderhobo" instead of just "adventurer," they're trying to capture associated behaviors that come with that.

>>3875139
NTA, and Not a DM, but I completely feel you on this.

>>3875139
> when people say "murderhobo" instead of just "adventurer,
They are making a joke about the nature of many RPG campaigns, sure. But, trying to commandeer a term, one that even sounds kinda cool to the type you are attempting to mock, and make it about disruptive players is dumb. Of course, it's too late now. The reality is that the "murder" part confused people, I guess.

>>3875083
The entire reason the "hobo" aspect of it happened was again, because of DMs using your character sheet's backstory against you. Well guess what asshole, you can't use it against me if I'm just a wandering traveller!

>>3875083
>Murderhobos happen because players dissociate from the game world and let their base impulses out on the game with no regards for the consequences of their imaginary on-paper person
No it's ultimately just a flavor of munchkin.

>>3875139
>Playing in a brand new horror-themed campaign in a spooky mansion (Curse of Strahd's intro adventure)
I feel the need to quote the movie THAC0 on gthis
>i'll play call of cthulhu with you next week if the adventure we play isn't the following: you are summoned by an old friend to a decrepit mansion in a remote location, near a village where the townspeople are constantly looking at the house, but NEVER speak of it! Strange things are happening and he wants you to investigate. Soon you discover that there's a monster in the house, which you cannot fight, and then you have to spend the rest of the adventure trying to act afraid of empty hallways, while looking for what door the secret library is behind, and what page from Nyarlathotep's Bedtime Stories For Great Old Ones you have to read to make the house burn down, THE END!

File: 2025-11-15 18_54_14-What (...).jpg (120 KB, 1321x824)

120 KB JPG

>>3875142
>They are making a joke about the nature of many RPG campaigns, sure
That's murderhobo(affectionate). Which can be appealing, but doesn't underline the problem at hand, and it's largely (in my opinion based on my own experiences and interactions online) used moreso in the derogatory sense than the affectionate one.

>>3875143
>The entire reason the "hobo" aspect of it happened was again, because of DMs using your character sheet's backstory against you.
Except we know that the murderhobo(derogatory) phenomenon happens absent of such DM dickery or even knowledge of DM dickery. Therefore, that cannot be the case. Murderhoboing is not a learned behavior, it's an expression of a natural one.

>>3875146
>No it's ultimately just a flavor of munchkin.
Kinda, but I don't think I'd ultimately agree with that. I'd say Munchkin is a larger circle that also has aspects of murderhobo, but has more to it then that. I'd say a Munchkin is a murderhobo+powergamer. All munchkins are murderhobos, but not all murderhobos are munchkins, basically.

>>3875147
>There's someone else on this planet that has watched THAC0
Holy shit my nigga.

File: why murderhobos exist.png (80 KB, 1726x308)

80 KB PNG

>>3875155
>Except we know that the murderhobo(derogatory) phenomenon happens absent of such DM dickery or even knowledge of DM dickery. Therefore, that cannot be the case. Murderhoboing is not a learned behavior, it's an expression of a natural one..
Yeah no that's full of shit. I'm just gonna quote the old 1d6chan on this one because they put it better than I ever could, and the only reason I'm using a screencap rather than greentext it is because it would be like 3 full posts long of pure green

>>3865968
Yeah, if you're 12.

>>3875168
I really don't care what a random 4chan wiki says about the subject. Because we know for a fact that a person can exhibit murderhobo tendencies outside of learned behaviors from bad DMing, we know that murderhoboing cannot be inherent to having experienced a bad DM. Nothing outside of that matters.

>>3875155
>That's murderhobo(affectionate)
No, it's murderhobo(origin) which was (descriptive) and a (joke). You newfag roleplayers just turn everything into a "you're playing wrong", one way or another and so murderhobo became a meaningless pejorative.

File: 2025-11-15 20_08_08-What (...).jpg (160 KB, 1375x812)

160 KB JPG

>>3875175
>No, it's murderhobo(origin) which was (descriptive) and a (joke).

>>3875176
I really don't care what Google AI says about the subject, bot-kun. I was there, I'm in my mid 40s.

>>3875176
Right. Idu why everyone is arguing about a joke. I think I hate crpg fans. Really some of the worst people I’ve ever come across. Arrogant, nagging, whining, and love to argue nothing with illogical statements. Babbling just to babble.

>>3875177
Well I do care because your claim actually goes against the facts, so I'm sorry you are both wrong and stubborn, but I will continue to adamantly use the term correctly in a derogatory manner, and you really can't stop me or the collective rest of the internet from bullying you out of the affectionate use of the term.

>>3875178
If it's a joke, it's simply at the expense of an awful play style perpetuated by bad players that the collective group as a whole decided to identify with a word. If you want to offer another word for a bad player that refuses to make character decisions based on the in-game verisimilitude of the game world, I'm all ears to your suggestion, but until a better, more unified term exists, I'll keep saying murderhobo(derogatory).

>>3875178
This is a tabletop argument, so you must be even more confused than normal.

>>3875179
I don’t believe it was ever meant to describe what you are trying to claim it is. That it’s a particular negative play style. It’s always been a general term to describe the absurdity of the average adventurer in a rpg setting. The other poster provided evidence supporting this. You have not provided evidence.

>>3875179
>Well I do care because your claim actually goes against the facts
You don't have any facts. You are referencing Google AI which even directly states the origin is vague, because slang is not a thing that exists within referencing material at its inception. How dense are you?
>but I will continue to adamantly use the term correctly in a derogatory manner
Yes, you will continue being an ignorant newfag, and proud of it. That's fine.
> you really can't stop me or the collective rest of the internet from bullying you out of the affectionate use of the term
It isn't affectionate at all, it's neutral. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I can see why you like to mock others at the table now, you are a control freak and have to "win".

File: 2025-11-15 20_27_39-Where(...).jpg (114 KB, 960x740)

114 KB JPG

>>3875184
>The other poster provided evidence supporting this. You have not provided evidence.
Well, first: What evidence has he provided? He's literally just stating "It is because I say so." He hasn't provided anything about the term whereas I've provided a few screenshots about its derogatory meaning and intention.

Second: Fine, here's more evidence. According to this random Reddit user, the first known usage of anything similar, "murderous hobo," is in 2007, with a tongue in cheek joke answer to someone asking for an alternate term to "adventurer" that someone was trying to find to use in-game for their setting. It is not taken seriously as it is obviously used pejoratively and is largely passed over by the OP of that thread.

After that, in 2010, there's someone here "sighing" about how his group is a bunch of murderhobos. The other threads I peaked into after that were also clearly using it pejoratively instead of affectionately.

So I don't know where anon got this retarded idea that it's meant to be used affectionately as anything other than describing bad behavior, but it doesn't line up with any fact presented in this thread other than he "says it is."

>>3875185
>You don't have any facts.
See above. Then present your own facts please, or stop asserting your personal beliefs as them.

>>3875192
>newfag tries to understand the past through google
jesus

>>3875196
>Oldfag makes up a bunch of lies then tries to deflect when someone actually researches into them.
Okay Jon Claude Van Damn and every Chi-based martial arts dojo of the 70s.

>>3875199
>actually researches
You should go start a Wikipedia article. Correct the record, so to speak.

>>3875201
Sorry, where was your proof that I was wrong again? I'm still waiting on that.

>>3875202
A simple google search.

>>3875192
>as it is obviously used pejoratively
>pejoratively
*jokingly

>>3875205
Okay. I did mine and showed you.

>>3875208
>*jokingly
Let's assume that you are correct in this for just a moment. Let's pretend it is ONLY a joke and nothing else. What exactly IS that joke? Is it...maybe players are exhibiting amoral and asocial behavior, and we are joking about them intentionally being these bad behaviors?

>>3875212
>What exactly IS that joke? Is it...maybe players are exhibiting amoral and asocial behavior, and we are joking about them intentionally being these bad behaviors?
No, the joke is simply that adventurers wander around and kill things for a living, even as good guys. From kobolds to bandits to skeletons to owlbears. They even harvest their parts and sell them, many times.

To get real proof of this, you'd need to do interviews, since subculture terminology isn't always recorded by google, not everything was scraped and people are still alive. Isolated anecdotes on the internet don't mean much compared to first hand accounts.

>>3875218
>No, the joke is simply that adventurers wander around and kill things for a living, even as good guys.
Then they wouldn't fulfill the murder aspect of it. They would just be monster slayers. Why isn't that term coined instead of murderhobo?

>To get real proof of this, you'd need to do interviews, since subculture terminology isn't always recorded by google, not everything was scraped and people are still alive. Isolated anecdotes on the internet don't mean much compared to first hand accounts.
Okay, show me such interviews. Show me literally anything that contradicts any of what I've said or shown you, and I will apologize to you and concede defeat.

Why are you guys replying to this autistic retarded redditor so much?

>>3875222
>Guys, this guy beat me in an argument and I hate that. Can we all just collectively agree not to talk to him anymore?
Say it to my face, coward.

>>3875223
Being an internet tough guy doesn't get you anywhere other than laughed at.

>>3875221
>They would just be monster slayers. Why isn't that term coined instead of murderhobo?
Because it isn't funny. Do you not understand what a joke is? Ask Google AI. The dude in 2007 even put a :) next to it to help autists.
>Okay, show me such interviews
No, I mean you'd have to do them.

>>3873232
tbf, FO3 just straight up having no fail true states by making so many characters essential, is the laziest way to do it.

>>3873343
Powergamers are honestly somewhat essential for game design because they are the people who will dig deep into the subsystems and actually tell you what works and what doesn't. You always want a couple in the QA circle of your development.

Oh, I can tell you an old pejorative for bad roleplayers players. Roll player.

>>3875228
>Do you not understand what a joke is?
You said earlier that the joke is "it's that adventurers wander around and kill things for a living."
What exactly is funny about that? It sounds like you're just stating something they do.

>No, I mean you'd have to do them.
So wait, let me get this straight: You want me to change my personal view of this word, how this word works in conversation I've had with dozens (hundreds if we include online) players and DMs, the underlying meaning, all of the definitional debates I've had with this over my life, ignore all known sources on the subjects, the context that they are presented in, and basically every known usage of the word that I can find solidly documented, because...
*checks notes*
...someone somewhere might say something in an interview that goes against all known evidence?

I'll pass. Do your own homework.
>B-b-buh you'll never know muh truth
See part 1 of: >>3875179

>>3875232
I can tell you another one: Murderhobo.

>>3875231
>Powergamers are honestly somewhat essential for game design because they are the people who will dig deep into the subsystems and actually tell you what works and what doesn't. You always want a couple in the QA circle of your development.
I have mixed feelings about this. I can see your point, but also, when devs listen to the powergamers in terms of balancing the game, it sucks all the fun out of it. Ruins roleplaying, turns into monotonous "optimization" which is the antithesis of fun.

>>3875238
>I have mixed feelings about this. I can see your point, but also, when devs listen to the powergamers in terms of balancing the game, it sucks all the fun out of it. Ruins roleplaying, turns into monotonous "optimization" which is the antithesis of fun.
I kind of agree with this. Powergamers are great for competitive games, but single-player adventure-oriented games have the most SOVL when it has jank, like "I found the best weapon in the game in dungeon 2, but in the penultimate dungeon 8, I found an item that would be useless even if I found it in dungeon 1."

I forgot the name of the rule someone wrote, but I live by the principal of "Never design a game or rule to restrain bad players. All it does is restrain the good players. The bad players will simply find new and exciting ways to be bad."

>>3875242
I think that ultimately, anon was right about the utility of powergamers in QA to find mechanics that are truly broken, or not functioning as intended, but that also, you need developers with the wisdom to know when to not listen to the powergamers.

>>3865968
Killing whoever I want is pretty low on my list. Like, dropping the penguin baby in Mario 64 is only funny the first three times.
Being able to pet a fucking dog is more player agency any day, and I mean that with absolutely no irony.

Going out of bounds using the game's controls and having things to sightsee is more liberating.

Fucking Ctrl+Shift+C, 'testingcheatsenabled true' 'motherlode' 'motherlode' 'motherlode' 'motherlode' 'motherlode'.

>>3865968
it's a pretty good failsafe system that gives players agency through action when they disagree with all presented dialogue options.

>>3875235
>You said earlier that the joke is "it's that adventurers wander around and kill things for a living."
Yes, see, the joke is calling an adventurer murderhobo, because that's basically what they are. I'm sorry, I can't explain humour to you.
>So wait, let me get this straight: You want me to change my personal view of this word
No.
>I can tell you another one
This isn't nearly as old as roll player.

>>3875271
>I'm sorry, I can't explain humour to you.
Yes I know, because you don't actually understand anything about humor or its usage and function in any society. That's why you're just saying "Well it's just stating a thing, so therefore it MUST be funny" despite that being criminally unfunny.
>No.
Then show me the proof, or admit there is none. I'm not changing my mind based on "what ifs."
>This isn't nearly as old as roll player.
Okay? And?

>>3875272
>you don't actually understand anything about humor or its usage and function in any society
I'd love to hear more about this.
>I'm not changing my mind
Good for you.
>Okay? And?
No and, that's it. You can't tell me anything I don't know better than you.

We've reached the terminal autism stage of this argument, time to move or or get a room, gents.

>>3875274
>I'd love to hear more about this.
Short version: Humor works by highlighting things that are wrong or incorrect in a way that demonstrates why they are wrong or incorrect. Like if someone says "oh this person is a murderhobo," the joke here is that it's wrong to be murderous or a hobo, as both things are undesirable, so the humor comes in from highlighting the poor undesirable traits from the typical bad behaviors of bad players at the table.

>Good for you.
>No and, that's it. You can't tell me anything I don't know better than you.
So we're just going to resort to smugly being wrong for a modicum of face-saving?

>>3875276
>Humor works by highlighting things that are wrong or incorrect in a way that demonstrates why they are wrong or incorrect
I see your confusion about humour is deep, for this is simply incorrect, since observational humour and many other types exist. I feel this is outside your wheelhouse and you should seek to recognize that in yourself.
With this joke, by reframing adventurers as murderhobos, you poke fun at the commonly accepted conceit that these are heroic people even though their job description is that of wandering killers. The joke is that it's functionally correct, but phrased in a way that is offputting when compared to the normal moniker of "adventurer". This is the joke.
>So we're just going to resort to smugly being wrong
No, I don't accept your ability to change your mind at all or to change mine. You simply cannot do either due to your innate communicative problems.

>>3875279
>I see your confusion about humour is deep, for this is simply incorrect, since observational humour and many other types exist. I feel this is outside your wheelhouse and you should seek to recognize that in yourself.
All of it still operates a on a presupposition that you're highlighting cultural abnormalties, i.e. things that are wrong. This still affects observational humor because you are observing and pointing out what is wrong.
>With this joke, by reframing adventurers as murderhobos, you poke fun at the commonly accepted conceit that these are heroic people even though their job description is that of wandering killers. The joke is that it's functionally correct, but phrased in a way that is offputting when compared to the normal moniker of "adventurer". This is the joke.
Yeah, but reframing alone doesn't do anything and you undermine your own words here. You're pointing out the juxtaposition of Killer and Heroic, and this only works as humor because being a killer is a negative trait, and being heroic is a positive trait. This same joke doesn't work if you reframe the word "adventurer" into "monster slayer" or into "professional wanderer" because they don't move from a positive to a negative trait and highlight the negativity of the adventurer role.

>I don't accept your ability to change your mind at all or to change mine.
Unlike you, my mind is open to being wrong. I still am sincere and open on the previous offer made to you.
>Show me literally anything that contradicts any of what I've said or shown you, and I will apologize to you and concede defeat.
You're choosing to instead act stubborn, like this is "clearly an agree to disagree" semantics argument when it's just simply the fact that you are wrong and refuse to cop to it.

Playing "spot the failsafes" in kill-everyone games takes me out of it. Why does no one ever do the Morrowind solution again?

>>3875280
>you're highlighting cultural abnormalties
lmao, now this is actually funny. You really think humour is merely a tool of cultural critique? Are you a Netflix comedian, by chance?
>like this is "clearly an agree to disagree" semantics argument
No, it's that not all arguments can be proven, there are no receipts for the genesis of slang. That's it. What we have is a failure of trust. You don't trust me, and yet I know I'm not lying. You also have a tendency to interpret data to suit a narrative, like suggesting the 2007 reference of murderous hobos wasn't a joke when it clearly was. You argue in bad faith.

>>3875461
>lmao, now this is actually funny. You really think humour is merely a tool of cultural critique? Are you a Netflix comedian, by chance?
Not an argument. State why this isn't the case or concede the definition.
>it's that not all arguments can be proven,
Even if I accept that, this one has been sufficiently proven. The only hold up is you took a false interpretation of the word and are trying to insist that this is the TRVE version of the word while not being the one that everyone else on the planet is using and has been using since it started.

I'm sorry you are retarded and stubborn and had to find out this way.

>>3875469
>State why this isn't the case
You first. Explain the cultural critique in "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
>this one has been sufficiently proven
No.
>has been using since it started
When did it start?

>>3865968
It's the bare minimum of player agency.

>>3865968
Killing innocent people is bad. Find Jesus and read the Bible.

>>3875582
>You first. Explain the cultural critique in "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
The humor in the joke comes from a bit of a practical prank on the listener. The joke is set up as though there is an expected punchline ("Why did the chicken cross the road?"), making the listener curious, so when they ask "why," the speaker then follows up with a very simple and mundane answer ("To get to the other side.") which calls into question the listener's expectations being in the wrong place ("Well what else were you expecting here, stupid??")
>No.
Staunchly being contrarian to the truth does not make you look more correct.
>When did it start?
Around 2007.
>N-NUH UH IT STARTED EARLIER THAN THAT!
Prove it with something other than "Just trust me bro."

>>3875651
>The humor in the joke
So nothing about cultural critique or cultural abnormalities. A joke can be simply playful with words.
>Staunchly being contrarian to the truth
Indeed.
>Around 2007
Yet the example you have from then is an obvious joke, a response to another name for an adventurer and nothing to do with a disruptive player at the table. We see here how this proved me right and then you pretended that it didn't by starting a tangent about "but what's a joke, bro".

Conclusion? You lost and you are too stubborn to admit it. Now, proceed to squirm, as is your wont.

>>3875658
>So nothing about cultural critique or cultural abnormalities.
The fuck are you talking about? The cultural abnormality is highlighting that the listener is queued up for a joke that wasn't in the right spot.
>Indeed.
So you will just choose to be smugly wrong about the topic. Understood. I'll stop replying to your cop outs then.
>then you pretended that it didn't by starting a tangent about "but what's a joke, bro".
So when someone says "Anon No. 3875658 is a pedophile child molester" as a joke, what you should really take from that is that I actually REALLY think that anon is a cool guy and that we should all be friends with him? You live in a lot of denial, chomo.

>>3875663
Hey, you dropped this:
>Yet the example you have from then is an obvious joke, a response to another name for an adventurer and nothing to do with a disruptive player at the table. We see here how this proved me right

That was a delicious squirm though.

File: 360_F_359152054_4X4X04LpL(...).jpg (26 KB, 540x360)

26 KB JPG

>>3875665
I mean, I didn't address it because it's been asked and answered. You haven't rebuked it at all, so the answer is still the same. You've just made it very obvious you're not going to address it properly because you lack the ability to.
>W-W-Well answer it anyways!
Start from here: >>3875212

>>3875667
I mean, it's clearly a joke, boy, it doesn't reference bad players and is entirely about a funny alternative name for adventurers. You then tried to use sophistry to skirt the issue by trying to get a simple joke explained to you. This is pointless squirming sprouting from your stubborn refusal to accept the reality. It started as a joke about how D&D was played in the old days and humourless control freak RP autists like you turned it into an insult. Case closed.

File: Miriam Thinking.png (1.75 MB, 1732x2360)

1.75 MB PNG

>>3875725
>it's clearly a joke,
That thread topic wasn't asking for jokes though, it wanted sincere alternative names for use in a serious-toned setting. Murderous hobos is funny cause it highlights the bad behaviors. That's the part that makes it obviously a joke.

I think this is just getting circular on your part, so I'll let you give a last shot if you'd like, and if you don't say something new/interesting, I'll rest my case. I think yours is sufficiently disproven.

>>3875728
>Murderous hobos is funny cause it highlights the bad behaviors
What bad behaviours? Killing things and traveling and looking for loot is literally what adventurers do, that's how the game is played and it's perfectly acceptable within the hobby. That's why it's funny.

I really think you have brain problems, if this isn't an act.

>>3875728
>That thread topic wasn't asking for jokes though
Wait, I skimmed this. Responding to a serious inquiry with a joke is perfectly normal human behaviour. Seriously question: are you diagnosed with some mental issue or developmental disorder? How do you expect to relate to any of this?

>>3875729
>What bad behaviours?
Just barely interesting enough for a curiosity question.

Do you feel that is a "good" or "bad" thing to be:
1. Murderous
2. A hobo
?

>>3875731
The fact that the response was meant as a joke isn't really the debate at that point, it's what the joke was communicating with the language. If I called you a "child molester" but as a joke, does that mean child molester actually has secret origins as a good thing to be called that nobody was aware of except for me because "I was there when the term came about?"

>>3875732
Those are bad things individually, that's the joke. That the context of what adventurers do, traveling and killing could be labelled as murderous hobos if you squint. But, this isn't "bad behaviour" within the context of playing an RPG.
>>3875733
This is complete gibberish because "child molester" has no relation me in this context.

What are you diagnosed with, like, for real?

Here's an example, Zatoichi, the good guy in his stories, albeit with some shading, is a murderhobo himself. The wandering lawman in Big Iron is a murderhobo.

>>3875736
You feel like a different anon, or maybe the same anon who is switching tactics out of a bad corner to restate the argument. Either is fine.

>But, this isn't "bad behaviour" within the context of playing an RPG.
On that subject it could be argued to be neutral. So before we continue, do you adhere to the belief that "Murderhobo is actually a light-hearted affectionate term that only describes a simple joke, and it is not used in any context to indicate poor player behavior at a tabletop," yes/no?

>This is complete gibberish because "child molester" has no relation me in this context.
You're failing the breakfast question here.

>>3875739
>[Character X] is a murderhobo
You can call anything a murderhobo. That doesn't negate the idea that it is commonly and broadly used by tabletop players to describe poor player behavior as well. The original start of this entire thread is me telling anon he is saying "Murderhobo(affectionate)" and that I was saying "Muderhobo(Derogatory)."

>>3875741
>You're failing the breakfast question here.
I know this is a hot gotcha on Twitter, along with picturing an apple, so you want to use it. But, I am not at all, you aren't making sense.
You said something utterly retarded here:
>If I called you a "child molester" but as a joke
I'll give you a way to understand this. Say you have a job at a waterpark and you pick up the kids and put them on the waterslide. Somebody, jokingly, could call you a professional child molester because it's technically correct.
>>3875741
>You can call anything a murderhobo
Not with any sense. This isn't random, it's perfectly applicable, but unkind, hence the joke.

Again, what are you diagnosed with? I'm not shaming here, I'm trying to put your confusion into context, because I can't understand how you can't understand. You yourself have proved that it started as a joke, you just want to feel that joke was mean spirited in order to make the term mesh with your current understanding of it. Like I already said, people like you had a reaction to the words involved "murder" and "hobo" and didn't understand the joke, so it became an insult for players who don't want to engage in dialogue or go along with the plot the DM is enforcing.

>>3875744
>Somebody, jokingly, could call you a professional child molester because it's technically correct.
Okay. And?

Also you dodged the question I asked before. Do you adhere to the belief that "Murderhobo is actually a light-hearted affectionate term that only describes a simple joke, and it is not used in any context to indicate poor player behavior at a tabletop," yes/no?

If you aren't discussing this, that's fine, but then I want to know what your overall point in jumping in on the topic is first, cause so far it just seems to be ad hominum for no apparent reason, which is making me think you're actually a discord butt-buddy of the other guy here who asked for backup cause he was losing that badly. But feel free to prove me wrong on that.

>>3875746
>Okay. And?
Wait, you truly don't understand how that relates?
>Murderhobo is actually a light-hearted affectionate term that only describes a simple joke, and it is not used in any context to indicate poor player behavior at a tabletop," yes/no?
You already asked this. I said, I'm using it as murderhobo(origin)(neutral)(descriptive). I've already acknowledged that many people don't use it that way anymore.
>a discord butt-buddy of the other guy here who asked for backup cause he was losing that badly
lmao, okay, I'm done. You're just an actual retard.

>>3875750
>Wait, you truly don't understand how that relates?
You didn't really make a point, you just sort of restated my example back at me poorly. The only new addition to it is "technically correct," but that doesn't explain why something technically correct is funny in the first place. The name of the plastic bit at the end of a shoelace is a aglet, and that is very technically correct, but it isn't funny. You're just entering into the same loop the other anon did, just way faster.

>You already asked this
Yes, and as I stated before, I'm assuming you're a new anon, and the only two posts I can identify as yours don't actually really state your belief on the matter. So you saying that you answered this doesn't really make sense here unless you are actually the anon I was talking to originally and switched tactics?

>I'm using it as murderhobo(origin)(neutral)(descriptive). I've already acknowledged that many people don't use it that way anymore.
That doesn't fully answer the question though. The initial thing that sparked this argument is anon telling me I NEED to stop using the word "incorrectly." If you're conceding that people don't use it that way, then that branch of the topic is fully closed as far as I'm concerned. Are we just now debating if the origin was describing bad players?

>lmao, okay, I'm done.
>"Oh shit, I've been spotted!"
2, 3, 10 of you. I don't really care. I'll take you all on.

High agency game != high quality game

>>3877666
So what, agency is often fun. It’s almost never not fun.

>>3877676
I disagree. Total agency is shit. Sometimes it's better to have less agency to maintain the integrity of the challenge.