For me personally the nuclear holocaust in F3 feels not too recent: I'd imagine the entire environment turning into a wasteland, creatures mutating, lethal radiation levels around nuked cities disappearing isn't very recent at all and could only happen after at least half a century.

As for people not having rebuilt after 200 years, I'd imagine it's actually the destruction of the environment & the prevalence of mutated creatures & pockets of raider gangs scattered about that would be responsible for that.

I don't call it either, but neither do I distinguish the two or favor one above the other.

The point of a stats based game is that they define your character; Define his or her limitations, define and influence any and all interaction with the gameworld and its inhabitants. At its core, the developed PC is [and serves the same purpose as] 'the bigger & better gun' that one finds is most FPS games ~And its used in the same way to provide the same feeling of accomplishment.

The PC [whether one uses it as their avatar in the world, or even pretends to be it throughout], is a defined entity with known limitations. As a rule, the player suggests actions that the PC attempts to complete ~but may fail. It is exemplified perfectly with two different characters both being sent to talk down a jumper ~where one's stats are weighted purely for combat, and the other purely diplomatic. The player is the same, but the "tools" are not. The gruff fighter just cannot come up with the suave & silver tongued words of the diplomat that (statistically) have a better chance to succeed.

In this, "Roll-playing" is less concerned with "what would he want to do", and is specifically interested in "What he can actually do".

Edit: It occurred to me to mention (and drive the point home) that I'd be fine with even normal jumping (every day hopping around like you do in Oblivion), incurring an agility [and/or Luck] check to see if the PC stumbled, and (with critical failure), crippled their own leg due to carelessness or bad luck.

Kiting in real combat would likely cause your death (probably loss of balance), and would at least ruin your aim. I see it akin to jumping around to throw of targeting in multiplayer FPS games. It's not roleplay, to my mind, because your character wouldn't know anything about action points or how many she might have left, much less exactly how many steps to take so that the enemy runs out of points before they can attack.

This does not apply to a turn based solution. In TB games the events are abstracted (heavily in some games). Stats define one's options, and the player's task is to use those options to their best advantage. (regardless of perceived realism of lack of it).

Okay... listen up folks... there was a whole bunch of posts about another site... some in defense of, some criticizing - and they are gone, and I just did a bunch of editing. I could have closed this topic for the ridiculous amount of discussion about another site - and those of you who consistently kept taking up the argument know better. :stare: My thanks to those of you who made an effort to remain on topic.

We do not allow or want cross-site trolling - see the forum rules. If you have a problem with some other site, by all means take it up there but leave off the comments on this site. If you have a problem with someone or something on this site, PM a moderator.

Now... back to your regularly scheduled discussion. If I see more cross-site trolling, I'll hand out warns and lock the topic.

Apologies to mods and posters. Much of that was my fault.

That is not what I meant.

Rollplay is to create the best character the ruleset can provide by selecting stats, skills, weapons, traits...all variables to accomplish that goal, regardless of roleplay considerations. The classic example here is to select a charisma of 1 because charisma has minimal effect in this game. The game is then played in such a way to min/max character potential by engaging in any activity possible, regardless of what the player character might know or do. The classic example in FO2 would be the run down the coast to Navarro to get PA early in the game. The character would not know of Navarro, probably doesn't know about PA, except, perhaps, from legend, and certainly wouldn't know how easy an exploit it is to get that armor.

This is rollplay: Using information the player knows, that the character wouldn't know, to leverage in game advantage. The clarion call of ROLLplayers is: "If the game allows me to do it, then I will".

I know that INT is the most powerful stat, so I max that in every character I make. I know where the INT bobblehead is, and I go get it first thing. I know the locker in the vault where there is lots of 100mm ammo so I'll make sure I get that before I leave, and I know I can't get back into the vault for quite some time, so I'll take that bobblehead...

Roleplay, as I define it, is playing the game character within the confines of what that character would do, given the way she was designed and envisioned. Back to our charisma example for a moment: If a real person had a charisma of 1, they might never leave the house. They wouldn't likely want to be in any town, and talking to anyone would probably be a real chore. They would win no arguments, convince no one of anything, and would approch someone only in dire need.

So, If I wanted to ROLEplay a person like this, that's how I would play her in FO3. The game mechanics done explicitly support this, as a character with a charisma of 1 isn't as gimped in game as they would be in real life. The Clarion call of a roleplayer might be: "I only do what my character would do, given only information that my character would know.

If I'm playing a low INT character (already an anti rollplayer move), it may not occur to such a person to look in lockers at all. They may not consider that they might get locked out of the vault, nor might they consider that a pistol might eventually be a better weapon then their trusty baseball bat.



Events are abstracted in every game. A roleplay game is a roleplay game, regardless of format or media.

Edited for typos

Especially in a video-game, I guess I do a combination of "roll-playing," and "role-playing," then. Sure, I design my character and his Attributes around the concept I'm going to play him as, but I still only "roleplay" within the confines of what the game recognizes. In any of these games, I don't usually come up with any particularly detailed backstory or personality quirks, because at any time I might run into something within the game that contradicts those things. If I'm playing with a CHA 1, I'll still talk to everyone I run into - but I'll often choose the more insulting dialogue options when I do.

And I have been known to plan ahead in regards to Bobbleheads, etc - I don't usually pick where I'm going to go based on what my character would choose, but in where I feel like exploring next. For myself, when I'm playing a video-game I'm only really roleplaying when it becomes relevant within the confines of the game -dialogue options, choosing how to get through an obstacle, that sort of thing. If I'm playing a low-STR character and I come across the STR Bobblehead, I'm going to take it - not because my character would want it, but because I do.

Or for myself, I made a little list of all the Bobblehead locations before I started playing - I didn't specifically seek them out, but knew that since I intended on visiting every place in the game I didn't want to end up walking right by one. So I'd check on the list before I left a location to make sure I wasn't leaving one behind - sure, my character wouldn't do that but it's something I wanted as a player. (Mostly I just like collecting things - it's not like your character is going to be any more overpowered with all of them than without them.)

I mean, I start out with a fairly solid concept of my character and who he is, but I just generally let the game take care of most of that - I define my characters by their actions. (This is also likely why I prefer the more cinematic skewing of Bioware games as opposed to Bethesda's sandbox feel.) At the same time, I'm not specifically designing a character to be as "uber" as possible, either. With Fallout 3, though - I'd argue you kind of have to "roll"-play if you don't want to max out a bunch of stuff.

Anyway, I'm not saying the above as any real attempt at debate - there's tons of ways to approach a game and none is more "correct" than any other. I was just thinking of which category I most fit into and I don't feel either really apply to me. (Though, who knows - when I think of "roll"-playing it makes me think of some of my "min/maxing" players back in my tabletop days - who were less concerned with playing a compelling role than getting the choicest gear and making sure their STR was always at the maximum.)

That's interesting, Kjarista. I don't think I've seen it explained that way. Well said.

I think people should play any game the way they enjoy. However, I believe that many of the arguments here revolve around the difference in play between rollplay and roleplay. Rollplay puts a premium on game mechanics, and any flaw (and there are always flaws in games) may appear huge.

Roleplay puts more emphasis on lore and backstory than game mechanics, but only insofar as the character understands lore. Mechanical flaws mean less in this case. This is why folks like me my not care for linear, character provided games like Mass Effect. We want to create our own way in the game, not follow a story. So, any faults in game mechanics can be compensasted for by roleplaying around it. Same is true for quest issues. Don't get me wrong here: these things are annoying to me, the player, and I would prefer not to ahve to deal with it, but it's not going to stop me from roleplaying.


FO3 is a great game for me because it gives me the framework to live in the wasteland in different ways. One of my current characters, for example, doesn't really care about anyone else. She won't go out of her way to attack anyone, but she also feels no need to help anyone either. She hasn't touched the main quest, nor any other quest. She wanders around, looking for a purpose. She may eventually find that se does care...or maybe not. Obviously, the main quest wasn't designed for that sort of thing, but the rest of the gamew as designed exactly for that. This character likely won't be very successful in terms of achievements or keeping score in any way. She won't be an accomplished tactician as most of my other characters, and few people will sing her praises. She is fun to play, however...she's just another schmuck out in the wastes.

Most players are like you, nu-clear, and do a bit of both. I probably do more rollplay the first time through, and much more roleplay after that.

In games like this, it's always my second or third character that I consider my true character. First time is for the story, second time is for a different perspective, and I tend to "role-play" (which typically doesn't last). And the third time is usually when I "roll-play" and make my superman (pictured on the left).

I know it's time to set the game aside for awhile when I find myself crating superharacters (min/maxing) It's fun for a bit, but it eventually annoys me. I haven't done that yet in FO3, but before this game came out, I had started a Morrowind character, so I have something to go back to. After I play her, I'll likely be ready to come back to FO3, or Oblivion, or Arcanium.

The superman is enjoyable because I like to have at least one character where everything is possible, and the only missed opportunities occur when I make a descision to go one way and not the other.

My superman is actually my fourth character, and by far the one I've enjoyed the game most with. It's a good feeling to be able to go anywhere and do anything without having cheated to get there.

Having a guy with 7 of 13 skills maxed, and none below 50. A guy with unique perks, every stat at 6 or better, etc. And having earned all that through roll-play, makes the role-play part more enjoyable.

Oddly enough, never made supermen characters or tried to. Generally I just try out archetypes. So I'll play a smart sniper or the scientist type character (smart, good speech, but, not much else) and so on. That was really a strong part of the Fallout games, after all.

Dilpomatic Sniper very much for the wynn

This is what I know of as the "power-gamer". My (false?) impressions of the term "Roll-Player", is what others call the player who is a stickler for the roll [results], but I can see how the other meaning applies.

{I see also that our definitions of "Role-play" are also somewhat different}

Except... that Fallout and Fallout 2 both let you venture off in a random direction, and it is possible in F2 (though highly unlikely) to hit Navarro by chance ~no matter how slim.
I don't have a problem with this... I'm squarely in the "If if lets me then its okay" camp ~That doesn't mean I'll do it, but the option is there. In the Hubologist compound there exists a hole in the center wall (that is not supposed to be there), and during a fight my character walked through it into an adjacent hallway. I did not consider stepping back though the hole and into the line of fire simply because of the glitch (though I could of); Instead I just found a way to rationalize it on the fly and continued the game.

In Baldur's Gate/ Durlag's Tower, I found a crack in the wall that (unintentionally) allowed one to teleport into a room with some interesting loot; Again I can rationalize that it was not intended by the one who locked the door, but my PC discovered an unexpected path. IMO if the game allows it, its ok.

Is there really any difference between a one player who pick 8 for agility, knowing that they can get Brotherhood enhancements, and another player who picks 8 for agility and happens to find them during play?

100% agreed.

That depends on the person. Some might have long since learned to use violence as a means to an end, instead of words. Another might really like people , and want to be liked, but be unable to interest others [with a CHa of 1], but still tries all the time (and tends to annoy ~no matter how positive).

That's a hefty assumption. (How do any of us know what they know at a given moment?). Consider a grizzled veteran fighter PC that is leaving a gambling house with a small fortune; He can't see the mob of thugs in the alley up the street, but he may well assume they could be there (might even be genuinely surprised if they aren't there ~Its what he'd do if he saw someone win that much and leave alone); So he might indeed give it a wide distance when passing, and avoid the waiting mob.

Why? Didn't you ever see RainMan?
It depends on the role; Did you see Sin City [the movie in this case], where Marv admits he's kinda dense, but he knows when to find someone smart , or how he often says (to himself) that he's too dumb to fit all the pieces together just yet... ~It depends on the role.

No... Some games the combat is between stationary "statues", and other times its gratuitously detailed realism. Dialog can be as detailed as Planscape or as simple as asking "Rumors?".

(only played FO3, if I can get my hands on the first two, I'll play them too)

The first time I played through fallout 3, I did find it very challenging, mostly because I didn't know which stats were good and which I should focus on, which I ended up not putting a lot of my S.P.E.C.I.A.L. stats in very wellplaced areas that my play style would need, nor did I think I'd need lockpicking as much as I did, as well as medicine and repair, so the first time around, trying to get used to the game it was very difficult to survive having had trouble with wasting ammo/health items and not having much room for a lot of inventory. The second time around, once I learned which stats were important and which I could put a stat here and there and which I should flat out ignore it made the game far easier than I remembered the first time around. Though I am pretty surprised that my NPC partner was able to take on death claws solo without my help, when they could rip me apart o.o he did make it pretty easy to survive as well as save up on ammo with his infinite gattling laser. X3

I selected this portion to make a general reply to the bulk of your arguments.

The point that I was making is that I create a character, then I play that character as I created it, based on the stats. That "hefty assumption" is no assumption. If i see my character that way, then that's the way she is. I am not arguing that ALL people act that way...just the one I created.

As in the post before, I agree with you. My [earlier] response centers on the notion some hold (and post about), that ISO games cheat because "your PC wouldn't know that", or "They can't see them around corners, so you are taking advantage..." Its nonsense [IMO].

Also there's the question I posed about your belief that playing a low INt is somehow being "Anti Roleplayer", so I mentioned Marv ~Who I thought was an excellent role, and an interesting comic; Interesting movie. He's dumb but not stupid (in D&D stats he'd be an INT of 2 or 3 and a WIS of 5-8) ~Tries to figure it out, but is aware that he might have it wrong, and might even be delusional [he's got a condition, and hasn't taken his medicine].

yea sometimes its hard forme to play a PC game

That's a good point about Marv - might be interesting to see something like his role worked into a current-gen videogame (trying to figure things out, having to find someone you trust to tell you whether you got it right, etc.)

What I found enjoyable about the whole low-INT dialogue options was less playing the whole game with an INT of 1 or 2, but on those occasions where I was suffering from severe chem withdrawal and ended up with an effectively low INT score. You can look at those as roleplaying a doofus sort of character, or as someone trying to piece together a coherent sentence through the haze of a really killer hangover/ trying to cope with a mind-numbing addiction to a drug that their sheltered upbringing hadn't prepared them for.

The problem with that is, you have to actively run counter to the game's mechanics to Roleplay. If you're Roleplaying a talking character who can't shoot to save his life, you actively have to aim everywhere but the target in order to achieve the exact same effect that the TB system succintly handles behind the scenes.

In other words, to Roleplay in Fallout 3, you consistently have to fight the game's actual mechanics. Pretend you can't shoot, pretend you can't lockpick. Things that should be handled by the stats and skills, but in Fallout 3 really aren't.

Not ISO game specifically, but any RPG. If you play in such a way that you use information the character wouldn't know, it's cheating in terms of roleplay. It's often easier to get too much information in ISO games because you can see around corners, and watch all enemies move on the map. It's easy to cheat in FO3 also, especially if you have played before and know where things are, etc.




Not anti roleplay, but anti ROLLPLAY (maybe I typed it in wrong) A person interested in beating this game would never create a low INT character, considering how skewed INT is here. Again, people with low INT in real life may manifest that in any number of ways. How my low INT character manifests low intelligence is up to me. My low INT character does stupid things, but learns from them. She learns to look into lockers, not to kick "those wires", and not to try to sneak with her radio and flashlight on. Her adventuring "plans" are essentially "go that way".

You can also find them at www.gog.com. Their versions are Vista optimized and cheap as well. Lots of bonus content too. Highly recommended..

You can also get them from Gametap. They have 1,2 and Tactics.

Lets be honest here, any and all opposition in Fallout 3 was third rate at best. Its a sad testament to Fallout 3, when your at level 12 and you can basically take on any and all opposition with little to no fear of dying. In the original Fallouts, even at your maximum level there was still a greater chance of dying, though Fallout 3, if you played the game "Doom Style", with a bit of ducking and sneaking thrown in, you really didn't need to worry what your skill level was.

Combat is pretty easy in FO3, but this isn't really a combat game. But to be perfectly honest, combat wasn't that tough in FO1/2 either, and as in FO3, combat wasn't important in those games either.