What is role-playing?

Click here and disable ads!

Simple, direct and short. I don't think it's anything new for the codex, but since some of you may disagree, I'm posting it in hopes some healthy argument may arise.

http://megascore.biz/index.php?p=50

Yup, discuss if you want to.

:EDIT:
Edited for the sake of selfishness. AND for the sake of the site. Thanks for reading.

This Codex Public Announcement would like to point all forum users to the following discussion so that we may let the poor dead horse rest in peace.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Moderate as you must.

It's a story with multiple participants which you can modify by your actions, but the outcome of your actions is at least partly determined by fixed rules and random elements.

That's a pretty good PnP definition. The problem with CRPGs is that most only have one participant, which is like a single GM and a single player... that's the biggest limitation and problem in my opinion, it means you have to rely totally on the GM (game engine and pre-programmed content) for interactivity. The problem with most RPG definition given by people on this website is they are too influenced by the solipsistic (YOUR freedom, YOU influence the story, YOUR choices, YOUR consequences) nature of CRPGs to date.

The fact is most CRPGs are essentially (much more) elaborate computerized CYA (choose your adventure) books.

Of course there are also problems with MMOs, but the pure CRPG I think would be some kind of multiplayer game with an incorporated rule-set and world, which could be used by human GMs and fixed number of human players for a campaign.

Role-playing is something done between human beings in real time. Playing against a computer is just a substitute, though of course it has advantages in it's own right.

Hey, no worries. It's just that this topic has been done to death and the discussion tends to go in circles. If you read what Rosh, Saint and the others say on the concept of RP you'll pretty much have all the information you need. Almost all worthwhile arguments are brought forward and handled in that thread - and it makes for some good reading too.

That article is a bit too abstract. Computers don't have creativity and so all choices must be pre-established. You can make an rpg that works almost like a strategy game in the first person having several factions playing a dynamic battle of interests between each other or you can have something like The Witcher where the story will be slightly modified by the way you choose to play and with postponed consequences. My preferred receipt is to have a 50/50 split.

Way too short. Trying to explain what role-playing is and isn't in one paragraph - instant fail. Not to mention that your definition is simplistic and flawed as according to it, Monkey Island is an RPG.

It is. You're role-playing a pirate wannabe, just like you are role-playing a space marine in Halo.

This was funny once.

The author of the article seems to be a bit greedy when it comes to words, he started right but for some reason decided to stop. Anyway: whatever! This sort of discussion has gotten old a long time ago. You know what they say: opinions are like assholes...

Anything that isn't close to this, is wrong. Academies don't study literature and art in vague phrases and feelings, they have terms to dissect things and study the actual moving parts.

It isn't about story or choices, it is about system and agenda. Dungeon Crawls like Wizardry are RPGs.

Here is what I think an RPG should consist of in order to properly play a unique role:

* 1 Choices and Consequences. I think the main point of this idea is that you should restrict the player to their choices so that every time they are confronted with choice it has a very real impact on the game and will open some doors and close others. Your choices create both friends and enemies, cause you fame and misfortune. It is a thinking mans/womens feature mostly, but is absolutely required to play a role. The real question is what would your character, based on their affiliations, life story, personality, skills/gear, and current situation do? I think it's painfully obvious why this is such an important feature.

* 2 Progression. Leveling up, finding new gear, exploring the world and finding new quests/cities/points of interest. This is important because it allows your character to grow and become the choices they make. It's a mechanic that's been around sense the beginning of PnP for a reason. It's fun! It gives the player a reason to want to take their character through difficult situations. They become stronger in the end and this breaths life into them. Your character can change and become the choices they make, this is why it's so important. Most games labeled RPG get this one done pretty well.

* 3 Branching Stories with multiple different endings. If you are rail roaded into a specific outcome then the game fails to offer proper consequence for your characters actions. The ending should reflect the characters choices along the way. If it does not then those choices were superfluous and pointless. They didn't provide any depth and were merely pretend choices that the player had to play out in their head. If the story has one ending then the journey is less important. Also, if there is a single ending, it may force you to play the game out-of-character, especially if your character wouldn't agree with the outcome, which is an obvious negative when it comes to playing a role. This idea applies to main stories as well as quest/faction stories. It's a development concept that must be applied across the board.

This was my own simplified take on this subject matter. I argued this on the TES forum for a long time, and honestly, it seems to have had slight impact as a lot of users agreed. Also, Bethesda seems to be incorporating a little bit of this into FO3, but we'll see how that turns out. Of course, I owe this all to the Codex where I read Project Monkey and many other threads before coming to this conclusion. And yes, this does rule out a LOT of perceived RPGs, but thats Ok. I like to be forward-looking on the issue so that we may one day see a game achieve these goals. Few have.

Here is what I think an RPG should consist of in order to properly play a unique role:

* 1 Elves. The main idea here is that elves have pointy ears and live very long. This is very important. They live in forests and don't like to fuck a lot which is why there's not much of them. Elves are important. Female elves are hot and bisexual. Males are also hot and bisexual, they look like females so it doesn't really matter as long as they are hot. They're good with bows and they make good wizards. Which brings the next point.

* 2 Magic. This is very important because in RPGs there is no common artillery so we need magic. In other words catapults don't exist in a RPG so you need guys tossing fireballs. Magic exist exclusively as a different way to kill things. Any magic that is not used toward this fashion is filler, which is good for the setting but not essential. Your magic system needs to be retarded and simplistic, with a mana system or a limited number of spells per day. Anything more complex than this will not cut it.

* 3 Being able to kill everyone. If you can't do that then the game is very, very lacking. You should be able to wack everyone even if you don't have a reason to. If you do, then every NPC should try to fight you to the death and you'll have to reload, which is really awesome because it's a huge consequence. Also, you should be able to kill everyone if you want. You are the hero and you are the shit and none can't stand your might. It might be OK to have a few plot-essential NPCs and stuff but not too much.

I owe this conclusion to the Codex. I hope one day games will be able to achieve these goals.

I know all that, and I don't think I contradicted it in the text... However, I disagree with you on what the limitations are. It's perfectly possible (theorically) to create a truly role-playing SP CRPG... You'd have to spend lifetimes coding or you'd have to be able to use much more advanced ai to simulate lifelike NPC's...

Indeed. I read it already, although it didn't really change my opinion. I'd write something more on the piece, but I wouldn't change the core of it. I only posted here because maybe it'd be interesting to have my words commented...

The way I see it, according to it no CRPG is a RPG. Anyway, does Monkey Island base its story upon player's actions and other characters' interaction?

You're going off the rail. I predicted that argument and I refuted it in the article. I don't see why you'd say that.

Could you please elaborate? I'm not english native... :\

It's not a must. Free form role-play IS role-play and has no progression if you choose...

Branching stories with multiple endings is not true role-play, it's just branching stories with multiple endings. In a true RPG you only have the setting. The story is the outcome of your interaction with other characters and the setting, and, idealistically, the story shouldn't be set in stone, even if with branches... Of course, I'd have to clearly define what I consider setting and what I consider story/plotline... Do you want me to?

:EDIT:
I know I'm no Role-Player or VDweller or Brother None when writting, and I know I'm green in this, and I don't pretend I'm not. Just because I have a gaming site doesn't mean I am a journalist either... Which means that I may (and probably will) post something more about the subject I could had elaborated a bit more, that's true.

Rpgs and crpgs are totally different subjects. Here's a few questions: Should crpgs simulate table top rpgs that preceded them or their source material? In other words, is a "true" crpg one that attempts to simulates the life of a characters or one that replicates a pencil and paper gaming experience? Should crpgs continue to be restricted by the conventions of table top rpgs? Do they need to use the same methods to simulate the game world (leveled classes, turn based, stat reliance) or are they free to pursue the possibilities offered by modern computers (first person, real time)? This site seems focused on replicating, as much as possible, the table top experience. However, when a crpg is played solo, many of the table top conventions are either unworkable ("fluid" dialogue... real choice) or less engaging (rt v. tb). When these conventions are discarded in favor of more engaging alternatives (real time combat, narrow focus, etc) many here claim the game is no longer an rpg.

:shock: Do I read you correctly in that you consider RT and a narrow narrative to be more engaging than the opposite? Engagning as in more attractive for the player, and thus simply the better choice? Wait, I sense the "TB was only used because that was the only viable option at the time, with the dawn of the modern computer we no longer need such a hamperd system"-stick coming on. While RT or TB might come down to a matter of preference in the end, there are few arguements as to why RT is the better option for a CRPG. In fact if anything a TB system is closer to RP mechanics in that it relies more on PC stats in execution. But this is something that has been debated ad naseum (cue "Project Monkey" link).

That is what RPGs are, adding in other elements just dilutes it with separate gameplay mechanics. It can make a fun game but it is less of an RPG.

What is frustrating is that developers have no fucking idea how to advance RPG gameplay mechanics (ignore of what indie P&P can do), so all they know how to do is throw in more action and FPS elements and call it the next step in RPGs when it is really just a step towards FPS games.

But this is probably part of the larger problem that almost no developers innovate system, all they do is produce more high-poly and polished content. Dawn of War changed the RTS resourse system a bit and Call of Duty 2 changed the FPS health system, both change the player behavior in a game; but such idea are rare.

And much of this trouble is because people are wrong about what P&P RPGs even are or can do. *hint: D&D and Universalis are both RPGs* P&P RPGs can have a narrow focus.

Real time is obviously more engaging then turn based in terms of demanding your attention. The character's survival depends on the player's engagement. Player skill contributes in the same way... if the player is not engaged the character will most likely not survive. Turn based games are a much more passive affair, don't you agree? They use the players tactical skills rather then his dexterity (plus you can make some lunch between turns). That was fine for table top but is that a more engaging computer game? So the question is; which is better suited to the medium? Which is more compelling for the player?

Progression to me is exploration, story/quest, gear, and stats. The current methods we see in games such as leveling and stat development may not be the be-all, end-all solution, but I think they are important even if there is a better way to implement them. Plus it's rewarding, though I think most RPGs focus on this too much. This usually gives the player a sense of only wanting to progress the character as the game promotes it so much. These games usually turn into a grind fest where the game is mostly a focus on progression of stats. (Diablo being a prime example, it was a Rogue-like progression game - which was Ok, but not entirely RPG. Also, most MMOs in existence suffers from this too.)

Branching stories are a way to simulate the lack of a GM. The idea is that each quest or story element has a branch that leads down a different path. This was much easier to do in PnP than it ever was in a hard-coded video game. Every choice can interweave with other choices, and can also lead down a unique linear path to a separate end.(It's a maze of interactivity and interconnectedness.) So, I figure that it's important because each play through becomes a slightly different story with different endings. This allows for every character to have a unique interaction with the story/quest in ways that make sense for the character. It's a way to go beyond the action (Thief/Warrior/Mage/Hybrid - combat/stealth approaches that are so common by design these days) where the text choices do lead to different tasks and affect the world differently.

Yes, each branch is still linear, unless you have branches within branches or they interweave at specific times, but if each quest/story element has 5 specific branches that are independent of one another and lead down different paths, the result is exponential. Probably difficult to implement, but it can be done.

Each branch has its own unique Choices and Consequences that further give each branch more depth too. It requires the player to think about what they are going to do, and further gives the designer more of a means to limit the choices to the character's abilities/skills when it's necessary. In modern games, doing this usually involves different types of text responses, but the responses generally are cosmetic. Imagine if each of those responses really lead to a different path, and if each path may or may not be available depending on your character. Plus, you open paths and close paths as you go. It's C&C within the story/quest outcomes.

The 3 elements I've listed build off of one another, and this is why I think they define a better role-playing game. Game's like Fallout were extremely close to this too. Not perfect, but probably closer than any other in existence. It's one of the purest RPGs one can play.(In my mind) We can agree to disagree of course. I'm just trying to promote an idea that progresses the genre in the right direction and those 3 elements I've listed would accomplish this I think.

Edit: I'm being pretty vague, I know, but if you're not sure what I mean explain yourself and I'll see if I can narrow it and define it better for you. Maybe it won't look so good beneath a microscope.

It is more demanding in reflex, but it doesn't mean that it requires more concentration. I have to concentrate more in Civ IV when devising an attack on an enemy stronghold that when shotting koreans in Crysis. Hell, I find Civ IV more engaging than Crysis. Of course that turns give you time to make some lunch between them, but would you want to? Or do you succumb to the "just one more turn" engagement.

(I know Civ is not an RPG, but it's the turn-based game I have more fresh in my mind, due to the lack of TB RPGs).

Beating this dead horse again? Fine, Sarvis, Final Fantasy is a jRPG.

Which tactical choices that you make in a turn based game are you not making in one that's real time? The only difference is the time you are given to plan and the players ability to put their plan into action. You don't loose much tactically by going to real time but you gain elements like fog of war and panic (which, if anything, makes real time a more realistic simulation).

One of the problems with trying to define role-play in this context is keeping straight the value computers add, their function and means of interfacing with us. Somehow, it's easy to forget what we all already know, that video games are merely an application for computers, and that computers are operated by us.

Is the C-prompt or its equivalent, by itself, some kind of a role? Is the blank screen or its equivalent, by itself, some kind of a world? No. Computers and the software they run are tools we use to enhance our ability to imagine roles and game worlds. The better the tools, the more value they add, but the effort is made in our own imaginations.

Puff-Puff-Pass

Sure. You act and interact and that progresses the story. I know what you meant, of course. You meant choices and all that goodness, but your definition wasn't clear on that part. We have several "what's an RPG" threads in the Monkey thread. They are an excellent source of well presented and different opinions. Take a look and finish the article.

Your writing is fine. The only problem with the article is it's very, very short. 3,000 words should be your average when it comes to shaping your thoughts into articles. Old man Saint preferred 5,000 words, but I lacked his skills and favored a 2,500-3,500 range.