RPGWatch Side Quest: Where is the "R" in CRPG?

[doctor_kaz]

I think it's less that the role has disappeared than that it was never there to a large extent in the first place. The disappearances of Troika, Black Isle, and Bioware from PC gaming haven't helped.

[Dhruin]

In our first Side Quest at RPGWatch, Corwin looks at roleplaying in modern CRPGs from both the player's and the game's perspective. Do modern CRPGs really offer any roleplaying and do modern players really want it?
How much Role playing really happens in a modern CRPG? According to a recent readers poll on a well known gaming site, more than a third of all respondents said they only played ‘themselves’ and fewer than that actually tried to play a role. Should this be surprising, or has the ‘Role’ disappeared from our gaming?
Head here (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/../show/article?articleid=13&ref=2&id=1) to read it all and don't forget to throw in some comments. Just in case you aren't aware, guests are able to post in news comments threads.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=2699)

[Rendelius]

In NWN 2, I am playing a Paladin. Can't say I am one in real life *g*

It always depends on the game. It allows me to play this or that role. In Oblivion, for example, I am playing an explorer/free spirit - something that would be hard to play in NWN 2.

[txa1265]

I think that it depends on how heavily scripted the 'hero' is. Many games allow you some flexibility of action and choice, but others dictate your responses too heavily, to the point where it is jarring. I like games that provide a rich experience for whatever 'alignment' you choose - that was one of my biggest issues with Oblivion: it felt like it was meant to be played once as good / neutral / evil all at once, taking on fighter / mage / rogue roles ...

[crpgnut]

I think it's less that the role has disappeared than that it was never there to a large extent in the first place. The disappearances of Troika, Black Isle, and Bioware from PC gaming haven't helped.

I'll agree that "Role" has never existed. Planescape tried, but you were really just a page turner in a story already written. I don't think SP crpgs can have multiple meaningful roles to play and be successful. Oblivion works for me because your "role" is a master-of-all trades character. Playing only one role in Oblivion would be impossible. Games like Gothic and PS:T tackle this differently. They make an adventure game, and add x amount of statistical crpg elements to their character and call it a crpg. You have basically two choices in single character role-playing games:

Designer Roleplaying games-This is a game where your character has been created for you and you're playing the role the designer drew up for you. There will be several choices within the game, but your role is defined already. You get to "flesh out" the character to differing degrees. Planescape, Gothics, Ultimas, Deus Ex, etc., fit this mold.

Statistical-based Roleplaying games-This is a game where picking your stats, skills, abilities, etc., define your role. You're not playing a role, you're picking a set of rolls/choices to build your game. These games are much less focused because of the number of options in character creation. The best of these games make your choices have consequences, but most games don't bother. The rest of the game is written so that no matter which set of rolls you choose, the outcome of the game is the same. There might be a few things that are specific roll related, but these won't affect the main storyline. The Elder Scrolls games are like this.

Games like NWN try to blend the two by having a party. The main character is statistical-based and the party is designer roleplaying.

I'm thinking that Corwin is right. If you want to play a "role" playing game, join a persistent online world that has game mechanics you enjoy. This is the closest thing we have to roleplaying.

I like character building and exploration games. That they call these crpgs is okay with me :D "Role" playing demands other people be involved; either other actors or an audience. SP games don't give that.

[GothicGothicness]

First Coriwn let me say great article, I've been thinking exactly the same thing. I disagree on one point. I don't think there is roleplaying in any single player game at least not currently. Because to me true roleplaying is using your own imagination. In a SP game you can only choose between predefined dialog and see how a pre-written story evolves. This could change in the future with for example a neural network.. which would be very interesting... but currently we are not there for SP games.

As far as multiplayer goes. The only game I found which offered truly great roleplaying was text-based games. ( Before someone cover in horror and stop reading, at least read why I think so ) The reason is that here, I can write the description of my truly unique character, create any kind of EQ I want him to have create the enviroment you want to have around you. Your actions are not predefined by the animations the character can do or the limit of emotes in a list. The world can constanly evolve, any environment is immidietly changeable. On top of that the people is simply great. In the average MMORPG for each good RP'er there's at least 100 noobs who just want to kill. The people who take the time to play a text based game are ussually great roleplayers. Neverwinter nights has a huge limitation, it doesn't have a constant world, when you stop one campaign you can keep the same character but the numbers of participating players is highly limited as well. IMHO there is no MMORPG or other game in multiplayer that currently has a chance to compare to the best text based roleplaying games. I playe one for 7 years, unfortunatly it had to shut down because people took it too seriously they'd flame the creator like crazy just because he changed something in a way they didn't like. After it shutdown I just couldn't find anything nearly as good as this.... so I stopped. My rating of WOW would be 2/10 as a roleplaying game ( yes I know about the RP servers ) the text game would get 10/10... no other game has given me so much fun... not even close.



and your wizard won’t be very effective running around in plate mail armour, but is this ‘really’ playing a role?
Really, in Oblivion I found this kind of wizard the most effective of any class I tried :D if you're a master in heavy armor it works really great :D Just goes to show how flawed this game is.....

[crpgnut]

Oblivion is great at what it is: a powergamers crpg. You're a master of all and it does this without blinking. If someone buys Oblivion expecting anything else, they're going to be disappointed. If you buy Oblivion, acknowledging it's for powergamers, you'll have a great time. The game is beautiful and it's chock full of loot and critters to powergame against. This is not for the group that wants every fight to be a challenge and each quest to have 100 solutions.

[GothicGothicness]

sorry my fault, I shouldn't have brought in Oblivion in this, it's not what I wanted to discuss... though I can never miss a chance to pick on it.

[TheMadGamer]

First off, great article. There's a reason why RPGDot became so popular and I have no doubt that with some great articles like this backing up this site, RPGWatch will do the same...

...we find two other divisions; those based on class distinctions such as D&D and those where your character can develop anyway you choose as in Oblivion or Gothic. It goes without saying, that people who choose a particular class, such as Paladin, or Wizard will have certain restrictions imposed on them which, in a sense, force them to ‘role-play’ to some extent. You can’t be an evil Paladin and your wizard won’t be very effective running around in plate mail armour, but is this ‘really’ playing a role?

This is such a great point, there are so many examples to site from and discuss.

I understand what you're saying here. But really, the same issue could also be raised with Oblivion and especially with Gothic... both fantastic games mind you. While in a game like D&D with its buffet of races and classes and restrictions thereof, to a lesser extent, Oblivion still imposes itself upon the player because unless I decide to create a mod, I have to choose from available races and available skills to define the character I make. According to what you wrote, to be a 'role' playing game, the developers would have to somehow build a game where the player could literally define every aspect of a character... which is not really a realistic approach... at least not with today's technology. Gothic is actually far worse in this aspect than both Oblivion or games like say, NWN...where you start with a canned 'hero.'

But there is an alternative way to view this from the gamer's perspective. Your article seems to assume that playing a role must be a role that the player chooses. But the notion that a player can play the role of a character someone else chooses is possible as well... in which case as it relates to this article, we are talking about the developers. There isn't anything wrong with this and both Oblivion and Gothic are quite entertaining games.

Another spin on this subject that came up during Oblivion's devlopement was when the developers starting releasing information about Oblivion that some aspects of combat would be player initiated rather than purely stat based. For example, instead of blocking being based on a skill of the character, in Oblivion the player would instead actually press a button to initiate a blocking move, where the stat would simply define the effectiveness of the block. Then the outrage followed and statements such as 'Oblivion won't be a true roleplaying game' if features like this were incorporated.

But really, by that logic, the character should just play itself then. Because as a player, if I take any control of the character in any way, say, such as running him around the game world to places that I choose to go to as the player, isn't that a violation of the complaint that blocking should be purely stat based? If I as the player choose to talk to a certain NPC, is that the character's choice or my choice? If it's my choice, have the developers failed? The truth is that to play a role playing game is to accept the imperfection that exists that while there may be a line between the player and the character, that line is always going to be blurry. As developers make games that blur that line in different way I find it better to try to enjoy the experience rather than bitch and moan that the line should be blurred differently.

What happens when a developer goes out of their way to offer many meaningful choices that will have serious consequences for the player? Well, in my experience, all it leads to are pages of whining forum postings about how unfair it is that someone cannot complete certain quests, or join certain factions, just because they made a choice early the game which has come back to bite them. Welcome to real world! I feel sorry for the developers, who appear to be in a no-win situation.

I agree on this point. I remember games like the early wizardry series, Bard's Tale, Ultima and other games like those where there were more consequences to your choices. They were fun games. But there is an inverse relationship between the gaming audiance expanding and the level of maturity in the gaming community. This disparity creates a lot of different expectations between newer RPGers and older ones... and it plays out grossly in many forums, mostly of which I avoid anymore.

I find it best, as in most things in life, to focus on what you have rather than what you don't have... to focus on what you like rather than what you don't like. When it comes to games, this is a good approach as well. It allows a gamer to enjoy games that subjectivley miss their mark.

[magerette]

Excellent article. And many excellent comments. The issue is not so much what is role-playing as what do people think it is or want it to be.

From Merriam Webster online:
Main Entry: role-play
Function: verb
transitive verb
1 : to act out the role of <role-play a shy person>
2 : to represent in action <students were asked to role-play the thoughts and feelings of each character -- R. G. Lambert>
intransitive verb : to play a role

Most cRPGs would answer to this definition--you are suspending disbelief in your own probably less-muscled, more effete computer-operating self and becoming someone else--but it's "playing the role of," not actually becoming. It's all a fantasy, and as in all fantasies, its what the fantasizer himself is bringing to the table that makes it work or not. Thus, Gothic is the prime example for some, PS:T, Fallout, BG1, Oblivion, etc for others, because of how each game can address that player's expectations.

So is a cRPG only truly a role playing game if it incorporates one's own personal slant--i.e., must be party oriented, turn-based, real-time, have complex dialogue interactions, consequences, inventory sorting whatever?

I don't think so--I think it just has to work as a proper fantasy should--taking one out of oneself and into another world as another person with the minimum of distraction from the process.(I suppose that's the immersion thing we hear so much about :)

And I think Gothicgothicness had a cogent point about the old MUDDs--my son used to role-play a barbarian in one, and he would disappear for days into it--the people he played with were more real and present in his life than most of his buds--because he could almost totally control his character and quite literally become it. Not to mention really getting good at keyboarding...;)

[GothicGothicness]

had a cogent point about the old MUDs --my son used to role-play a barbarian in one, and he would disappear for days into it--

Yes, thank you for bringing that up as I forgot it in my first point... it was kind of a problem. But some people would get so into the mud that they forget their real-friends, their real-life and even to sleep. Kind of like world of warcrafts does to some people. But this addiction was different in some ways I think. It was not the "I just need to do another quest thing, gain some more xp... get some more gold" It was I want to keep roleplaying this wounderful character I created a bit longer. It's cute and funny how a rather large part of the mud got married on there at first... and after that proceded to get married in real life. No wounder people took the changes to the place so seriusly.

[magerette]

Yes, thank you for bringing that up as I forgot it in my first point... it was kind of a problem. But some people would get so into the mud that they forget their real-friends, their real-life and even to sleep. Kind of like world of warcrafts does to some people. But this addiction was different in some ways I think. It was not the "I just need to do another quest thing, gain some more xp... get some more gold" It was I want to keep roleplaying this wounderful character I created a bit longer. It's cute and funny how a rather large part of the mud got married on there at first... and after that proceded to get married in real life. No wounder people took the changes to the place so seriusly.

I didn't think it was a bad thing then nor do I now--you're quite right about it being more like the creative side of the psyche coming out as opposed to plain unadulterated greed! I think it was just the call of kindred spirits--and it required a lot of mental energy. Some of the challenges and puzzles these people devised for each other were quite tortuous. But it can always be too much for some people--too much better than the world they are supposed to be living in, which is not nearly as much fun.

[roqua]

Great article corwin, but I think you missed the big aspect of role-playing, that being action and the core of what a role is. Dialogue in game i think hurts this, as it forces a role, or role-type on you. I much rather prefer the old games with no character dialogue, just ambigious choices. I can fill in what was said myself, something my character would actually say. Your example of PST is the antithesis of roleplaying, but is a great example of what a great story and dialgue driven rpg can be like. In PST you are the nameless one, with a set history, and very few different ways of playing an actual role.

The difference between role-playing and playing a role is the difference between being an improv actor or reading a cscript for a play or movie. In The RoA series, ToEE, Darksun, Wizardry, etc, all my characters had very different personalities. They all interacted with each other and npcs differently. That might make me crazym or maybe I play crpgs the right way

A good example of this is ToEE. I went into Nulb beet up badly and went into the inn to the south, one of my character's, a tough guy that doesn't back down from a fight, got his pocket picket by the serving lady and caught her doing it. I know if I called her on it all the npcs in the bar would attack. I was playing in Ironman and I knew this was a life and death situation for him and the party. So I have a character that doesn't back down from a fight having to choose between backing down or getting himself and all his buddies slaughtered. This choice took a long time but he finally decided he would ignore it, for now, and come back and get his revenge later alone. Making this decision killed him, and he was quiet and sullen the for the rest of the game, even after we killed everyone in that inn later, it just killed him to back down.

Now, all this was represented with in game was one option, fight or ignore (and we wouldn't of had that option if he didn't spot it). Roleplaying is something you put in a crpg that actually supports your attempts at it. And instead of games trying to support roleplaying, they are trying to kill it with pregenerated characters, backgrounds, set dialgue, etc.

Roleplaying a character is a lot more than rolling up a paladin and running around and doing good and lawful deeds. You have to really create another person, a fully fleshed person that is motivated with greeds, vices, dreams, and desires beyond having a LG,CE, NG, CG, etc. designator

[Corwin]

roqua, I had to leave some concepts unsaid, so that people like you with your very strong opinions would have something to contribute to the discussion. After all, the purpose of the article was to generate discussion, not to be a definitive statement!! I'm just pleased people are enjoying it and having their say on this issue. :)

[roqua]

I'm not saying what your opinions where wrong, just showing a different perspective on what roleplaying is. I personally didn't roleplay at all in PST because the game did it all for me. The background was set, the choices were mostly set, etc. If you compare that with ToEE, a game that had crap dialgue and a weak story, you get two opposite ends of the spectrum. Most people here would say ToEE was weak on role-playing aspects, but it was perfect for how I play games, as I fill in the motivations with make-believe party banter bewteen my characters. I had a paladin leave the one of my groups because everyone was making fun of him for being such a conservative stickler, and that screwed everyone else because we needed him for the end fights, and they all got slaughtered at the boss frog fight.

I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right. In fact, most people want the computer to take the place of imagination I would say. Chances are the fact I have make-believe conversations filled with high drama with made-up fully fleshed characters on a crpg makes me a little (or a lot) retarded. But thats how I have fun, and thats how I believe role-playing on a crpg should be, or at least supported. I would love a backstep to the good old days of one word ambigious answers to npcs from party members. But everyone wants 100% voice acted fully fleshed out, pregenerated responses to choose from, that I feel put words in to one of my characters mouth and forces the character to say or do things they would actually never do.

I can see why the voice acted, pregenerated route would be appealing, I just believe its the antethesis of roleplaying.

[txa1265]

In fact, most people want the computer to take the place of imagination I would say.

That was something from the IGN thing that interviewed all of the RPG folks - they all said that we viewed the old days as 'Golden' because the games ignited our imagination and left much for our minds to fill in, therefore immersing us deeply as part of the overall experience. But then they say things are much better now :rolleyes:

No game with fixed dialogue options captures my role-playing completely, but I like having AI NPC's to say crazy stuff like Minsc ...

[Lord Alex]

Great article Corwin. I'm going to address one facet that I, as a designer of NWN mods, have found particularly irksome with cRPG gamers.

First, here's your quote: "What happens when a developer goes out of their way to offer many meaningful choices that will have serious consequences for the player? Well, in my experience, all it leads to are pages of whining forum postings about how unfair it is that someone cannot complete certain quests, or join certain factions, just because they made a choice early the game which has come back to bite them. Welcome to real world! I feel sorry for the developers, who appear to be in a no-win situation."

There are two problems with the notion of non-linear questing in a cRPG. For one, it is simply impossible to replicate the experience of "total freedom" that is central to playing pen-and-paper D&D, V:tm, or Das Schwarze Auge with your best buds. It is this lack of freedom that makes traditional role-playing so much more immersive and engrossing than the computer-based variety. And second, designing a non-linear, single-player cRPG is kind of like creating a giant house of cards. The resulting product is such a fragile, disjointed thing that pulling one card out of the stack can cause the whole game to collapse in a pile of broken sub-quests.

However, cRPG designers are so desperate to re-capture that feeling of "true" role-playing that they look past all the inherent difficulties and attempt the impossible anyway... with varying results.

But, the question must be asked: Is it worth the trouble? Apparently, publishers don't think so. They seem perfectly happy with funding linear, action-based cRPGs where the focus is placed squarely on stats and the accumulation of new armor and weaponry. Btw, these action-based games have more in common with the old Rogue-based games like Angband, Moria, and Ragnarok than they do with D&D. I would lump Obsidian in this pile, as Daggerfall was essentially designed to be Rogue in 3D.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the publishers on this one, as the majority of cRPG gamers out there seem more concerned with their ability to min-max stats and swap out new equipment than choose a path through a non-linear adventure. In fact, I would say the majority of cRPG gamers are quite happy to play "follow-the-dots" through a linear story-line if it means they have total freedom in crafting the character that most meets their needs.

Btw, creating a unique-looking character is not role-playing either. It is the equivalent of playing "dress up" with your Barbie or G.I. Joe doll.

[roqua]

But really, by that logic, the character should just play itself then. Because as a player, if I take any control of the character in any way, say, such as running him around the game world to places that I choose to go to as the player, isn't that a violation of the complaint that blocking should be purely stat based? If I as the player choose to talk to a certain NPC, is that the character's choice or my choice? If it's my choice, have the developers failed? The truth is that to play a role playing game is to accept the imperfection that exists that while there may be a line between the player and the character, that line is always going to be blurry. As developers make games that blur that line in different way I find it better to try to enjoy the experience rather than bitch and moan that the line should be blurred differently.

There isn't a blurred line. The difference is between physical and mental control. Roleplaying is a mental activity, not a physical one. If I were a cripple I could roleplay an untra agile ninja that can do flips and crap. Poelplaying always has been and always will be a mental activity. You can not make a clear devide between mental aspects when the person is supplying the personality of the character played. Obviosly, a retarded person could not roleplay a genius very well, but a genius should be able to roleplay a retarded person with ease. A blind person could roleplay a sharp-eyed ranger with fantastic elven super vision. A big fat fattty fatso lady with a mustache and horrible acne and nose warts could roleplay a beautiful princess. You supply only the character, nothing physical in a roleplaying game. And character's character falls 100% in the land of the mind, not the body. The character's physical attributes are supplied by numbers, and the player's physical actttributes have no effect on these numbers. So a real life midget doesn't have to play a hobbit or dwarf in a roleplaying game, he can be a huge half-orc with bulging muscles and the ability to have his feet touch the floor when sitting.

This is really a very easy concept to grasp. There is no fine line between when a game incorporates too much player physical ability and skill into an rpg. If any amount is important then the game isn't an rpg. This can be easily tested by what i call the Stephen Hawking Test. If Stephen could give dirrections to someone hitting the controls and that dictates the actions happening in the game 100%, its an crpg. If not, its not. So Oblivion isn't an rpg because there is no way for him to say what to have the character he is roleplaying do as he could in a pen and paper rpg, or in real crpgs like ToEE.

In Oblivion and other non-rpg action games of that ilk, your character's skill doesn't dictate if s/he is a master swordsman, your personal skill does. So if you aren't playing the role, but are yourself the role, you cannot be playing an rpg. its simple logic.

Please realise this is not an argument of what games are good or bad, or what games are the awesomest in the world, just clarification on an element of video games that must not be present for the game to logically in a sane world be considered an rpg, and that of course is the twitch factor, or player physical input factoring in to success or failure of a character who is supposed to be roleplayed, not played factor.

I am right, there is no getting around it. This isn't an argument, just fact. RPGs and crpgs cannot incorporate player physical ability into a game and still call it an rpg. Its impossible. It is a fallacy and violates the theory of non-contracdiction and just simple common sense. Maybe its fun, or funner, or even the funnest way to do it, but its not an rpg when alls said and done.

[Aides]

"For me, the worst examples of CRPG’s are those which present the player with no character choice whatsoever. Instead, you begin with some sort of pre-generated character which you are then expected to role-play. How can I, a somewhat elderly male, be asked to realistically play a female teenager? Sorry, but my creativity does not extend quite that far. That’s NOT to say it makes for a poor GAME, it’s just not a ROLE-playing game for me."

So to you, Betrayal at Krondor is not an RPG? I find that ludicrous. True, the inability to create a character limits imagination. On the other hand, one can develop the characters that fall under one's control in great detail, thus offseting the disadvantage entirely. In fact, it could be argued that roleplaying characters forced upon oneself is more rewarding, because one is not tempted to shape their personality after one's own while creating them, and one must adapt to their particular flaws. It is a healthy way to dissuade powergaming; in IWD, on the other hand, it is hard to resist the urge of building a 18-strength warrior - a prodigy! - , while the game, focused on dungeon crawling, encourages one to proceed in such fashion.


"But, the question must be asked: Is it worth the trouble? Apparently, publishers don't think so. They seem perfectly happy with funding linear, action-based cRPGs where the focus is placed squarely on stats and the accumulation of new armor and weaponry. Btw, these action-based games have more in common with the old Rogue-based games like Angband, Moria, and Ragnarok than they do with D&D. I would lump Obsidian in this pile, as Daggerfall was essentially designed to be Rogue in 3D."

I don't like where you're heading with this. These contemporary action RPGs should NEVER be compared to roguelikes. The latter are not straightforward in the least, presenting instead complex gameplay in which there are consequences to one's actions, in which the world is rich and surprising, and in which many modes of play are possible besides senseless hack and slash.

[Severius]

As others have said there really isnt any roleplay in single player rpgs. I think the closest we had was Ultima IV (even without the ability to really craft your own character) you were thrust into the role of being a hero and had to act appropriately. But even then it didn't really allow for the character of the player to come through. And I doubt that any crpg will ever allow for that because there are limits to the dev's imaginations, and to the technology which we have today.

In multiplayer though the roleplay is basically limited to the interactions between the players. The gameworld is a static place and has to be that way because everyone has a "right" to the content for all intents and purposes. Then of course there are the different camps of roleplayers that make life miserable for people that don't RP their way, which in turn turns roleplayers against each other and turns off potential roleplayers.
Things may change eventually, but I dont have alot of hope for it. The dev teams aren't really focused on making truly groundbreaking innovative games anymore, as they are more interested in the dollar amount that their competitors make. :D Sure there are companies like Bioware out there that are basically our last best hope but, Bethesda ,once upon a time, was a bastion of hope as well.

[Cormac]

So Oblivion isn't an rpg because there is no way for him to say what to have the character he is roleplaying do as he could in a pen and paper rpg, or in real crpgs like ToEE.

Roqua, you wrote in a previous post that you roleplay your characters, that you use your imagination for make-believe, etc (the TOEE example). The same can be done in OB. My main character is primarily a fighter who fights only with swords (because he prefers swords, not because axes are blunt weapons or because Bethsoft took out spears) and who uses magic for ancillary needs like healing. If this were D&D he'd be a paladin. At one time during a quest I found myself in a isolated house with three hostile women; I knew they were about to attack me and because it was early in the game and my PC was rather weak and I was nervous, I unsheated my weapon before they made a move and therefore my first kill was recorded as a murder. When you murder someone in OB you get a night visit by a member of the dark brotherhood inviting you in his guild. My PC never went, because he's not that kind of person (he has a heart of gold, really). Isnt that RP ?

In Oblivion and other non-rpg action games of that ilk, your character's skill doesn't dictate if s/he is a master swordsman, your personal skill does.Maybe its fun, or funner, or even the funnest way to do it, but its not an rpg when alls said and done.

I understand perfectly what you're saying and I pretty much share the same opinion, however, having 100 strength and 100 in sword-skill makes you a better fighter than a player with 20 in strength and sword-skill in all RPGs with action elements. Your twitch skill is only a part of the total equation, and in some games like OB it's actually the lesser. And I find TB combat more fun than any other kind.

[Corwin]

Aides, Krondor is a marvelous game which is still on my HD and which I still enjoy playing!! However, and I'm ready to be attacked on this, it is not a true RPG. It's a wonderful adventure game with tactical TB combat, that tells a great story with SOMEONE ELSE's characters, not mine!! It's an interactive novel, but I, personally, didn't 'identify' with the characters, they were forced upon me. I wasn't roleplaying, I was guiding characters through a story. To me, there's a difference. It's still one of my all time favourite games!!

[Aides]

Aides, Krondor is a marvelous game which is still on my HD and which I still enjoy playing!! However, and I'm ready to be attacked on this, it is not a true RPG. It's a wonderful adventure game with tactical TB combat, that tells a great story with SOMEONE ELSE's characters, not mine!! It's an interactive novel, but I, personally, didn't 'identify' with the characters, they were forced upon me. I wasn't roleplaying, I was guiding characters through a story. To me, there's a difference. It's still one of my all time favourite games!!

I'm glad you think highly of the game. :) But don't you think that it is possible to identify with a character by reason of his interesting personality, even if he's not a personal creation? As stated in my previous post, I believe that the limits which are set by imposed characters encourage role-playing. For instance, such a character possesses a personal background from the beginning of the game: his deeds are rooted in the game world; his history not being the product of mere fancy, there might occur possibilities of role-play if, for example, he meets with acquaintances or reaches known places. Secondly, imposed characters often have particular weaknesses, quirks, and so forth, that might weaken them from a powergaming perspective, but enrich them as far as personality goes, in addition to increasing game difficulty.

Besides, I find your criteria for appraising RPGs somewhat narrow. It is not necessary to live the life of a character born of your fancy. It is enough to control a character with a - hopefully - fleshed-out personality and make him react in accordance with the latter, so as to *change* the surrounding world through his actions and words. What I mean is his "life" should be marked by significant events, such as perilous fights, alliances, betrayals, etc. He should have a determining influence upon his universe (which doesn't mean he must always be some hackneyed Chosen One). Going to pray at the local chapel, collecting flowers and whatnot can, I suppose, help immersion, but such acts are ultimately insignificant in the character's overall existence, and even more so if they are not endorsed by the game's mechanics (like it often happens in Morrowind!). "Acting out" a part in detail and role-playing shouldn't be confused. In fact, even in drama, only events and conversations of particular importance are portayed.

[Corwin]

Perhaps, but in Krondor, your actions really make no difference; it's a totally scripted game where you follow a prescribed path, even to which group of characters you get to play!!

[Chekote]

I almost always play as an idealistic version of myself. Definitely far more high morality than I am in real life. It's so much easier to do the right thing when you have so much power.

That is until I finish the game or get bored, then I tend to turn into some schizophrenic psycho. XD

[Aides]

Perhaps, but in Krondor, your actions really make no difference; it's a totally scripted game where you follow a prescribed path, even to which group of characters you get to play!!

Yes, good point. The main plot is linear from what I remember. Nonetheless, there are side quests which allow some freedom of decision. You may correct me; I haven't played it in a long time.

[roqua]

Cormac, I agree you can roleplay in Oblivion (I haven't played it but I have played Daggerfall and Morrowind), but that doesn't make it an rpg, since when you stop roleplaying and start in with the combat you stop playing a role and become that role governed with your own personal skills.

The krondor example fits in perfectly. Its also one of my favorite games, but ca't be a roleplaying game because of the exact oposite reasons oblivion isn't an rpg. The game is an interactive story. An interesting story with interesting characters, and one of the best combat engines I've played. But the characters are predefined, as well as how the characters interact or what they say and basically do. This cannot be dismissed away as technical limitations as it was done 100% on purpose; reulting in a fnatastic game, but not a crpg.

If you can't roleplay in a game, or your physical abilities have an impact on the game, it isn't an rpg or a crpg.

Think of it this way, when you read a book or see a movie, you see the world through the eyes of the character, live vicariously through them for a bit. In an rpg, the character lives vicariously through you for a bit.

[roqua]

Yes, good point. The main plot is linear from what I remember. Nonetheless, there are side quests which allow some freedom of decision. You may correct me; I haven't played it in a long time.


That is not true. The only decision in side quests is if you do them or not. The only decision presented in BaK is whether to go left or right. either way you end up at the same place in the end, having seen everything and heard everything said 100% the same way with no deviation from the script at all.

[Cm]

Think of it this way, when you read a book or see a movie, you see the world through the eyes of the character, live vicariously through them for a bit. In an rpg, the character lives vicariously through you for a bit.

Very clear way of explaining it Roqua.

[Corwin]

Finally, roqua and I agree on something!! :)

[roqua]

We agree on a lot of things I think.

[xSamhainx]

well, you both are insane!

If I roleplay when I play Cooking Mama, does that count?

[txa1265]

If I roleplay when I play Cooking Mama, does that count?
Only if you continue it while cooking actual meals ...

[titus]

usually I polay a kind of merceneray. A good -hearted person but who will do what he want, the ways he wants and will do the neceserray stuff to do what has to be done. But in the end he will always be the good guy, he just might not get there by being totally good, he will never become a palladin. Too goodie good for him :D
Only in divine divinity I really felt like playing a goodie good person :D

[Lintra]

Corwin,

Let me start off with: Great article. Let me follow with, haven't you and I been on threads kicking this around for the last 5 years (maybe longer, perish the thought)? There have been games where the 'role play' options are central to the story ... one could argue, for example, KoTOR. There you have a meter tracking your light/dark leanings and either track opened up new options. But is it role playing? I would answer, not.

To scratch my SP RP itch I have long conversations in my head with the NPCs as to why I am doing this or that. I place restrictions on what my character can and can't do. For example: A pally-type character will not sell or buy items from a suspected fence even if the fence offers better rates than others.

In MP it is all about who you party with ... it is that simple. No matter how silly or static the game world, it boils down to the interaction of the party members - and there is *nothing* to replace that. Example: In WoW I have a dwarven pally and spend a lot of time adventuring with Jodri, another dwarven pally. We have gotten our selves killed multiple times because dwarves just don't give up, and dwarven pally's are even worse when pursuing the agents of evil. This, of course, leads to much laughter and fun and enjoyment. While not all the banter is 'in character' ("You *really* wanna try to take out that group of 4 L35 elites?") I view it as a code.

However, WoW breaks down in many respects breaking the spell. Say Jodri and I just get back from a gruelling multi death adventure killing the big baddie X. We rejoice and sing and dance afterwards and head back to town filled to overflowing with the joy of our amazing feat. So why does this dweeb in the town square keep bugging me about helping him take X down? Didn't I just do that? Haven't you heard? I imagine a MP NWN2 game would be much better at this. But this problem is, to a large degree, the draw back of a persistent world.

Another way in which CRPGs break down is in the very limits of the engine. I have used this example before, but will use it again! Say a small back water town pisses my character off, invent a reason, any reason. I want to get revenge. Find me a game that allows me to do the following: Come back many years later stinking rich, and set up an import business that will sell food cheaper than it can be grown locally. Run at a loss for years. What the heck, I can afford it. Change the entire complexion of the towns economics. Then, when the local economy is 100% dependent on my services - pull out. All the way. In fact, actively make it very difficult for anyone else to set up shop in town (piracy, bribes, buying out stocks from far away, what ever it takes). Ruin the town. Let them beg for help, and then remind them of the slight from decades ago before you say "bugger off". Reduce the place to a ghost town. Now *that* is revenge much sweeter than coming back and hacking off everyone's heads.

What game engine anywhere can get even *close* to that kind of flexibilty? Until you get there CRPGs will always have an artificial element to them.

[roqua]

Lintra,

What game master has a mind suave enough to handle the economics of what you describe? That would press any GM to the edge to have to similute realistically what would happen. And in that event you would have to be playing alone with the GM, or have a group of friends that wouldn't mind playing a boring economics game instead of an rpg.

Now lets say its a NWN module run by a DM, or a real pnp game, you could skip the details, roll some dice, and see what the outcome is. If its ruin for the town, ruin it is.

In ToEE, this could be represented by killing everyone in town and just imagining you ruined them through finance.

I think what you described can be done in a crpg, it would just take a lot of resources and time and a big chunk of the game, so it really wouldn't quailify as a side quest, more an intrisic part of the path to the end if anyone were to do it. Or it could be done simply with the roll of dice and time passing.

[aries100]

HI :)

Just wanted to say that Bioware is still around, also for PC gaming. Porting Jade Empire for PC and making Dragon Age for PC is proof that Bioware hasn't abandoned pc gaming...

[Fenris]

The Question is not "Have they abandoned PC-Gaming ?" but have they abandoned "Role-Playing ?" ^^. I think they haven't... while NWN OC was a Disapointment, the AddOns were OK. While I haven't played any later Bio-Games (I don't think it is possible that Console-Ports can be good RPGs and I don't like Star Wars...) I still think Dragon Age might turn out to be a good RPG - if they stay true to their Statement that it is developed for PC.

[Corwin]

I have great hopes for DA, but JE certainly doesn't appeal to me!!

[Lintra]

Lintra,

What game master has a mind suave enough to handle the economics of what you describe? That would press any GM to the edge to have to similute realistically what would happen. And in that event you would have to be playing alone with the GM, or have a group of friends that wouldn't mind playing a boring economics game instead of an rpg.

Now lets say its a NWN module run by a DM, or a real pnp game, you could skip the details, roll some dice, and see what the outcome is. If its ruin for the town, ruin it is.

...

You are right about the details being mind boggling - so you don't do it. Instead (if I were gaming with a good DM) the approach would be more along the lines of describing what you wanted to the GM ... it would then be up to the GM to decide what the salient issues that need detailed attention would be, and what detailed research/computations to throw back on the player. The vast amount of the story would be handled abstractly ...

But I digress!

The example was just meant to highlight the lack of flexible response in a game. I chose an economic example because a decent economic model is one thing a computer *should* be able to handle *much* better than a human (not that I have really seen one yet).

Another example of CRPG limitations ... ever walk into a new town and then spend the next 30 minutes hunting for the mayor? Or the general store? Even Bob the carpenter? Just the kind of thing *any* local would know and *should* able to tell you. I find that destroys the immersion more than almost anything else.

I guess that until the computer can generate of world of tens of thousands of individuals each responding to stimuli (local and, to a certain degree global), that interact with each other (including such odd things as procreation), can comunicate interactively with the player on a host of topics, be driven by a set of 'wants' and 'needs' and adjust their behavior to account for what they've 'learned' you won't have a completely immersive environment allowing you to role play.

Even tens of thousands might not create enough mass to reach a sufficiently stable equilibrium ... the model might require hundreds of thousands .... so I don't see a completely immersive environment for quite some time, as it would, in effect, be an interactive simulation of a world. Just think of the number of variable needed to depict the motives and drives to create a simple farmer! What drives him to get up in the morning? At what point is he so misarable (fear of starvation, violent death, lack of personal freedom(???)) that he packs up and moves.

Next crazy example: take a medieval serf type social arrangement ... now say that local unhappiness with the lord is reaching critical levels. How would you realistically simulate inspiring a peasant rebellion? Something a PnP game could do easily.

[roqua]

I agree with your points, i.e., not being able to ask where the blacksmith is to anywhere. The answer to the crazy rebeliion would be scripts I guess, but again, thats something that would be a key part of the game if any good amount of resources where going to go into scripting/presenting it. But again, your right, until computers can do what the holodeck in star trek can do, crpgs will always have rp limitations.

[ffbj]

Well this opens a big can of worms. I think in general that rp'ing has fallen by the wayside these days. One problem who is the definitive authority on what rp'ing really is? There isn't one. Everyone has there own ideas about roleplaying a character. I could say that after running campaigns for thousands of hours I do have a clue, but there is no doctorate in roleplaying. It's all subjective. Still with cprpg's it has really declined even more, as players can justify about any action they take as roleplaying.

How many players really struggle with questions about what would my character do in this situation? Hardly any. People just react , usually in what benefits their character the most. I have seen a few people try to roleplay their characters on so called roleplaying servers. For the most part it is really a joke. People tend to roleplay caricatures of certain character types. Hauty, arrogant elves, jovial, nosey hobbits, and gruff dwarves. I once played a dwarf with a high int. I had him speak intelligently, and diplomatically for a dwarf. Not a single person got it, even other dwarves. They just did not get why he would not act like a dwarf is supposed to act. Now that is roleplaying, or what it has slid down too. Acting like other people think your character should act. If you do act that way they think it's good roleplaying. Sorry for being a bit jaded but I think roleplaying for the most part is well nigh dead, gov!