What the "RP" in "RPG" Stands For

Ah, the never-ending quest for an RPG discussion site. The Rampant Coyote points out a post by Brian 'Psychochild' Green (Meridian 59) titled What the "RP" in "RPG" Stands For and adds some comments of his own. I don't think anything gets resolved or proven but he makes some interesting points:

What's interesting is that as games try to define more roles for a character, it becomes more restrictive. Maybe the role I want to play wasn't defined by the developers. Or, maybe what the developers consider "noble" is different than what I do for my character. It can actually be jarring to hear my stoic fighter grunting in pain because the developers wanted to add voice to the game. So, defining more roles doesn't necessarily add to role-playing.

Click to expand...

...and Rampant Coyote's comments.
More information.

I agree with that paragraph. There are no holes left, which I could fill out with my own imagination. I would say that a lot of games, including RPGs, have more in common with TV and film, than with books. For me that is sad, since a good book has more appeal, but I can understand that the 'TV versions' of games sell more.

What this unending discussion proves more than anything is that there has never been a genre so ill-served by its name as our beloved CRPG. If only CRPGs were called something else, we wouldn't have this problem. The reason they should be called something else is that single player "role-playing" is inherently impossible, but that doesn't stop people from trying to explain how this non-activity is the foundation of CRPGs.

I won't get into it, but look at say MMORPGs. One of the ways servers/realms/whatever are divided is role-playing versus not. We all know that the game is a MMORPG regardless of which server you play on, but the fact that you can either role-play or NOT should make it pretty clear that the RPG in MMORPG has nothng to do with the RP in "RP Server." Why? Because RPG is just the name we give to games with stats and experience and levels and gear and what have you. There's no role-playing.

Role-playing is something you do on a corporate retreat, with your kinky lover, with your psychologist, or with a group of friends playing a PnP RPG. An utterly fundamental requirement is that there be someone there to give a flying F. about how you act. Notice how outside of computers and even outside of fantasy gaming, there is role-playing. But outside of computers there certainly is no single-player role-playing. There's just imagining.

You can use your imagination in any computer game, or any game, or any activity. That's why it's impossible to define a genre around engaging the player's imagination. But again and again, the community tries to do just that. All because of this stupid name that the genre inherited from PnP games.

Yeesh said:

What this unending discussion proves more than anything is that there has never been a genre so ill-served by its name as our beloved CRPG.

Click to expand...

I adamantly disagree, for what is an action game? Are we sure that only titles like Giana Sisters, Bubble Bobble and Kingpin: Life of Crime deserve this label? Do other games not require, beyond the gamer's observation, also his intervention, his action? Doesn't the term "action game", as used by some, not degrade players of so-called "non-action" titles by depicting them as passive consumers of stimuli? I will not take this. No matter whether we look at Civilisation, Monkey Island, Jagged Alliance or Ultima IV, our actions determine the outcome, even if they simply make sure that there is progress on screen.

The problem is, that the term "action" is mostly defined by marketing peiople who'll stick it onto whatever kind off games just for marketing reasons.

And that means that someone will jump to it.

Which means that "action" is like some kind of rubber term.

It was an interesting read, and I enjoyed it though I would have been happier if the author had come to different conclusions.

The crux should have been his point about interaction in P&P games and the ways it was handled. In his example the dice didn't detract. The DM limited his contribution, and that's what detracted from the game. But his conclusion that "...it still took other people to interact and play a role" was almost perfect.

There are some things that, though they may not require it, are better done with collaboration. Dancing, going out to dinner...and sex: Take the collaboration out of that and you're left with masturbation.

RPG is one of those things that improve with collaboration. In P&P the players' choices are aimed at the DM whose job is to collaborate. Players make decisions for their characters while DMs make decisions on behalf of the game (and the game world).

The author saw what was difficult with trying to do that in software, but came to the wrong conclusion, IMO: “What's interesting is that as games try to define more roles for a character, it becomes more restrictive.” That can and does happen, but I can’t imagine any reason why it’s unavoidable.

Like all other video games today, these put emphasis on simulation. There's little opportunity for the player to ever indicate style or personality, little opportunity to express intent. Games rarely provide those choices and even when they do barely evaluate and respond to them. It's a paradigm where role-playing is moot as a rule, where it doesn't factor in unless an exception is made.

If players were able to indicate their role choices throughout the game, not just during dialogue, and if games could evaluate that myriad of choices and respond, these computer games would be much more like the ones the author played and enjoyed: The P&P games with good DMs.