What about "Role-playing" actually matters in a CR

[Giauz Ragnacock]

As my first topic post this might be all over the place, but that's never noticibly detered a Codexer from savoring the meat of these curious posts.

Anywho, in a CRPG what matters when we think of "Role-playing?" In a single-player experience you have no real person to justify yourself to as part of the game. So, why should we (as the game designers feel we should) feel the need to be some other character than ourselves if by doing so we do not benefit a living player's shared entertainment but conform to a program and the unintelligent NPC representatives of that program (I believe what players are really asking for here, when they refer to role-playing, is greater context-sensitive interaction-simulation)?

As for multiplayer and MMORPGs, one has poses a question of utility (as for the purposes of actual Role-playing) and the second faces the same problem that PnP RPGs and all RPGs face (though the issue is most apparent in the MMO and PnP variety. What I mean concerning multiplayer (like LANs and splitscreen) is that using the game tools to "role-play" for another close-by player is rather clumsy, and acting like your character using your actual speech and gestures only serves to show how much the "role-playing" attached to the game's genre is still firmly grounding in one's immagination and direct communication between players.

The problem most apparent in both MMO and PnP RPGs is (as some blogger I can't recall has observed) that the games themselves contain no actual role-playing. Now, if any are still with me, you are surely shocked by this accusation, but consider what both are. Each is a set of rules that do not neccessarilly conform to any one particular goal as is what would by many be considered a game (the goal usually being as simple as defeating opposition and winning), though various flexible goals can be assigned. Because having goals be assignable, various, and flexible does not cater to an easily repeatable game format the experience of playing the game is not nearly as dependent on the game itself (either the program or the rules in the books) as it is the players.

Simply put, there is nothing about RPGs that has to do with role-playing. Whether one wants to shape one's own immagination and interactions with others to benefit a shared entertainment abiding to the rules and theme of the games is completely a choice by the individual player. If this is not so how could munchkins and rules-lawyers and f*tards and "farming" exist? These players aren't cheating as they are playing within the game's rules, but they are not role-playing.

Sorry, about the length, but I felt that I had to be thorough to get at what people really think even with all this talk of a game containing no actual "role-playing" when 1) RPing doesn't seem to be inherrant of any make of game and 2) unless the player is using PnP with friends or is on an MMORPG there is no discernable benefit to using the game's tool's to "role-play" as the tools are either unnecessary (as with nearby multiplayer) or of no bennefit (whether the player treats his in-game selections as role-playing or a risk/reward puzzle makes little difference in observable game output).

A bit of repeating myself, I know, but what are your thoughts on these matters (regardless of CRPGs and PnP RPGs being a market-proven legitimate source of enjoyment)?

 

[DalekFlay]

Re: What about "Role-playing" actually matters in

The problem most apparent in both MMO and PnP RPGs is (as some blogger I can't recall has observed) that the games themselves contain no actual role-playing. Now, if any are still with me, you are surely shocked by this accusation, but consider what both are. Each is a set of rules that do not neccessarilly conform to any one particular goal as is what would by many be considered a game (the goal usually being as simple as defeating opposition and winning), though various flexible goals can be assigned. Because having goals be assignable, various, and flexible does not cater to an easily repeatable game format the experience of playing the game is not nearly as dependent on the game itself (either the program or the rules in the books) as it is the players.

Your whole post is kind of "wha?" but this part... If I understand you correctly there is no role-playing because the players game the system? As in, to succeed you do X and that makes it not role-playing but game-playing?

If that is what you meant it's interesting. In any case though I think you will find most here look at role-playing as creating a character who has a designed role and then acting out that role through gameplay. The role being designed to win against the perceived game is sort of expected, not a cheat or gaming the system.

 

[mondblut]

Roleplaying to an RPG is like formal costume is to poker. No relevance to the game itself whatsoever, but the snobs still demand you to comform to it.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Damn, mondblut.

Six years of posting here, and you are still upping your game with new clever-isms, analogies, and comparisons about LARPing.

You really are an old dog with new tricks. :D

 

[Renegen]

I think most video games just fail terribly at "role playing". It's easy to talk about it, or complain it doesn't exist, but most people just have no idea what the hell that means. Thus, it's hard to implement.

I still content that Deus Ex is one of the best "role playing" games ever, because you really embody the character of JC Denton. Your highs and lows are the same as his, your surprises are the same as his, and your thoughts and actions are the same as his. You go through an intellectual journey as the story progresses that also mimics the one of JC Denton. In the end, the player is allowed to write the next chapter in the game, totally up to his imagination. Of course, even the Codex doesn't recognize Deus Ex as an RPG. It's madness, but the game is pure brilliance, and it's not just the "many paths" bullshit.

Another one of the best "role playing" games I've ever played is the adventure game KGB. The game beats you into submission to feel and act like a spy, you can't trust anyone, you have to remember every fact, you play with incomplete information etc

I also think that Dune (from the same company Cryo) is marginally a role playing game, especially if you don't know the Dune story. You feel trapped on the planet, and alone, unsure how to solve your situation.

Very very few games do role playing. For everyone else, it's just a marketing gimmick.

 

[MMXI]

I don't give a slightest fuck about make-believe "i-am-a-paladin-so-i-will-only-do-paladinlike-things" bullshit, because there is only my computer and me, and neither of us cares.

 

[Renegen]

I don't give a slightest fuck about make-believe "i-am-a-paladin-so-i-will-only-do-paladinlike-things" bullshit, because there is only my computer and me, and neither of us cares.

And that's exactly where most games fail. 95% of people don't give a shit to roleplay as paladins, and that's precisely why it's boring and why everyone thinks "role playing" is boring. As long as you will have the idea that role playing is make-belief, then the genre will never take off. "role playing" comes from necessity. For example, in a multiplayer strategy game you may feel compelled to betray a friend, maybe even a RL friend, to win. At this moment, whether you realize it or not, you are role playing as the ruler of your kingdom and you're not the 18 year old nerd sitting in your mom's basement anymore. You begin to understand and think like a ruler.

The RP tag is attached to the wrong game 95% of the time to the point people don't even know what it means, and don't even want real RPing. And that's precisely why a "RPG" that aspires to nothing more than some stats and dungeon crawling is a noble endeavor in our shallow diluted video game market.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Renegen, you have really made a broad stretch here.

In order to find the ideal RPG, you have clawed your way towards Dune, KGB, and Deus Ex, but jumped completely over games that we generally call RPGs.

 

[MMXI]

I don't give a slightest fuck about make-believe "i-am-a-paladin-so-i-will-only-do-paladinlike-things" bullshit, because there is only my computer and me, and neither of us cares.

And that's exactly where most games fail. 95% of people don't give a shit to roleplay as paladins, and that's precisely why it's boring and why everyone thinks "role playing" is boring. As long as you will have the idea that role playing is make-belief, then the genre will never take off. "role playing" comes from necessity. For example, in a multiplayer strategy game you may feel compelled to betray a friend, maybe even a RL friend, to win. At this moment, whether you realize it or not, you are role playing as the ruler of your kingdom and you're not the 18 year old nerd sitting in your mom's basement anymore. You begin to understand and think like a ruler.

The RP tag is attached to the wrong game 95% of the time to the point people don't even know what it means, and don't even want real RPing. And that's precisely why a "RPG" that aspires to nothing more than some stats and dungeon crawling is a noble endeavor in our shallow diluted video game market.

This reads eerily like a post on RPS.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Re: What about "Role-playing" actually matters in

So, why should we (as the game designers feel we should) feel the need to be some other character than ourselves...

As exciting as it is to play yourself in a role-playing game, eventually you may feel the need to try other characters (if only to demonstrate the sheer fucking awesomness of yourself as a character compared to any other), in which case, setting certain guidelines might be very beneficial, assuming, of course, that a game provides enough options to make role-playing viable.

In other words, role-playing in cRPGs has absolutely nothing to do with LARPing or make-believe.

 

[mondblut]

I think most video games just fail terribly at "role playing". It's easy to talk about it, or complain it doesn't exist, but most people just have no idea what the hell that means.

Indeed they haven't. And so they typically go by the "roleplaying means immershun!!1" route. In b4 "stupid numbers and turn-based ruin mah rooleplay".

 

[MMXI]

Indeed they haven't. And so they typically go by the "roleplaying means immershun!!1" route. In b4 "stupid numbers and turn-based ruin mah rooleplay".

Nowadays role-playing equals dialogue options.

 

[Renegen]

I don't give a slightest fuck about make-believe "i-am-a-paladin-so-i-will-only-do-paladinlike-things" bullshit, because there is only my computer and me, and neither of us cares.

And that's exactly where most games fail. 95% of people don't give a shit to roleplay as paladins, and that's precisely why it's boring and why everyone thinks "role playing" is boring. As long as you will have the idea that role playing is make-belief, then the genre will never take off. "role playing" comes from necessity. For example, in a multiplayer strategy game you may feel compelled to betray a friend, maybe even a RL friend, to win. At this moment, whether you realize it or not, you are role playing as the ruler of your kingdom and you're not the 18 year old nerd sitting in your mom's basement anymore. You begin to understand and think like a ruler.

The RP tag is attached to the wrong game 95% of the time to the point people don't even know what it means, and don't even want real RPing. And that's precisely why a "RPG" that aspires to nothing more than some stats and dungeon crawling is a noble endeavor in our shallow diluted video game market.

This reads eerily like a post on RPS.

Please be more specific. I fully support the heaviest, deepest "RPGs" but most don't offer much in the realm of feeling involved in the character. I'm not some closet casual gamer, I am simply saying what can trigger the most involving experiences and they can happen anywhere across the video game genre spectrum.

Wyrmlord, I hope the games I've mentioned have something in common. They leave a mark long after they were finished. I remember in Galactic Civilizations for example when it occured to me that I could win by staying neutral while manipulating global politics behind the scene and causing wars. It worked perfectly. Galactic trade plunged between every faction, except with me, and therefore I controlled probably 80% of trade routes. I could outspend anyone to start wars whenever someone was too strong, or prop up a weak player. I understood at that point how machiavelian I was, and how maybe the RL global politics game is. And it's all only possible because of Galciv's difficult AI that forced me to push myself to the limit. While a strategy game, the game might have marketed itself as "the ultimate global politics experience".

Some RPGs have shades of "role playing". Fallout 1 is a good example. And even though Fallout 2 has more content, Fallout 1 is still preferred, possibly for the feelings it left. But games like this are few and far between. Did KOTOR make you feel like a jedi? not really. Did Arcanum make you feel like anything? No, it was just some stats and some combat. It was brilliant, and there's nothing wrong with settling for that.

Sometimes I feel that if RPG developers, or indies, went for the soul of what "role playing" is, we wouldn't be having the decline. Arcanum, for what it is, even KOTOR, always feels uncomfortable. It's between two worlds, and as such the developers feel it needs to be "improved". The end result has been a dumbing down, and a lot of soul searching for what an RPG is. But does anyone try to improve Deus Ex? No.

 

[laclongquan]

I don't give a slightest fuck about make-believe "i-am-a-paladin-so-i-will-only-do-paladinlike-things" bullshit, because there is only my computer and me, and neither of us cares.

This remind me of the time I played Kingdom of Dragon Pass. The game devs, the few left fans still haunt a google group, and some buggers kept bugging me "but the game require you play a small tribe", "but the novel say you command a small tribe" etc and etc... while I totally ignore them and posting my tale of playing the biggest tribe ever exist in that small world, or giving advices to newbies that it's better to play big tribe than small. It's really amusing, it was.

And let me tell you I didnt even plan to troll them. Just the way I played that game.

 

[mondblut]

This remind me of the time I played Kingdom of Dragon Pass. The game devs, the few left fans still haunt a google group, and some buggers kept bugging me "but the game require you play a small tribe", "but the novel say you command a small tribe" etc and etc... while I totally ignore them and posting my tale of playing the biggest tribe ever exist in that small world, or giving advices to newbies that it's better to play big tribe than small.

Well, the "your tribe is ought to be very small and weak and stuff" gimmick is their only excuse for the number of railroaded, hamfisted "rocks fall, everyone dies" events the game is infamous for. Waah, how's that a roleplaying when you can just kick everyone's ass, where's epic drama in that, blah blah blah.

Compare to Celtic Tales, where you can keep challenging fomorian champions, and then, one day, after a decade or more of suffering, your warrior will actually defeat theirs in combat. And then you gather your party and venture forth to kick their collective asses on their own turf. *That's* what games as entertainment are about. If A# were making Celtic Tales, they'd probably flat out disable winning over fomor champions in combat because otherwise that wonderful gay marriage scene of Balor and player's chief they delightfully prepared as the story's culmination would make too little sense. Storyfags, always looking to cripple and ruin the game for the sake of their shitty narrative.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

Role-playing means creating characters with different stats and having the game react to them differently. This is what sets RPGs apart from other games.

 

[RK47]

I think most video games just fail terribly at "role playing". It's easy to talk about it, or complain it doesn't exist, but most people just have no idea what the hell that means. Thus, it's hard to implement.

I still content that Deus Ex is one of the best "role playing" games ever, because you really embody the character of JC Denton. Your highs and lows are the same as his, your surprises are the same as his, and your thoughts and actions are the same as his. You go through an intellectual journey as the story progresses that also mimics the one of JC Denton. In the end, the player is allowed to write the next chapter in the game, totally up to his imagination. Of course, even the Codex doesn't recognize Deus Ex as an RPG. It's madness, but the game is pure brilliance, and it's not just the "many paths" bullshit.

Another one of the best "role playing" games I've ever played is the adventure game KGB. The game beats you into submission to feel and act like a spy, you can't trust anyone, you have to remember every fact, you play with incomplete information etc

I also think that Dune (from the same company Cryo) is marginally a role playing game, especially if you don't know the Dune story. You feel trapped on the planet, and alone, unsure how to solve your situation.

Very very few games do role playing. For everyone else, it's just a marketing gimmick.

Sorry. The word you're seeking to represent KGB's quality is immersion, not role-playing. Dune? Gimme a break, Drog. You're killing me here. And Arcanum is the best Real Time Strategy game ever.

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

Wow, glad to see that the Codex is really expediant with all the thoughts. Renegan, you especially brought up some good points about games not traditionally considered CRPGs, but the way you have to play the game forces you to act like a character. In this way you are not just choosing the best dialogue option or something similar, but the most comfortable way to play the game. Looking at it this way, the RPing is not neccesarilly a conscious effort meant to appease NPCs as if they were real people (the synergy of shared improv to players' entertainment does not exist).

However, one of my questions that I would really like some thoughts on is about the actual role-playing content contained from the roots of PnP on up. With PnP, I remember one person on another site commenting (if I may paraphrase), "Some games were great and many were horrible. I think it all comes down to people." At the time, I was trying to get into one of my brother's friend's game of DnD (I've sort of put trying to the wayside as I am unsure if I would actually feel comfortable role-playing versus just asking, "Hey, what else does the book say?" and I also remembered I hate a lot of paper mess). I had never thought about that whole unlimited possibilities thing and how if someone can't fit actual role-playing in a massive amount of computer memory how can they fit it in book someone can own without an industrial crane to move it. That commenter made me realize that even after years of PnP publication no one has actually turned RPing into a game. The fact that any RPing even happens in PnP games is purely the choice of each player. If all players decided not to act like any consistent characters the game could still go on just as smooth like a CRPG because, honestly, some people just like the increasing numbers, risk/reward of combat and other situations, and the feeling of beeing in good company.

I don't know, my thoughts are still a mess, but what do you think?

 

[RK47]

Wow, glad to see that the Codex is really expediant with all the thoughts. Renegan, you especially brought up some good points about games not traditionally considered CRPGs, but the way you have to play the game forces you to act like a character. In this way you are not just choosing the best dialogue option or something similar, but the most comfortable way to play the game. Looking at it this way, the RPing is not neccesarilly a conscious effort meant to appease NPCs as if they were real people (the synergy of shared improv to players' entertainment does not exist).

...Look, in PnP, the options available is only limited by your imagination (within constraint of the PnP system of course) and how tolerant your DM is to your ideas on how to solve certain situations.

If you take the immersive Spy-game example like KGB where the DM is nonexistant and only tolerate certain paths or else face immediate failure (GAME OVER), you have to realize it's completely different and it's not Role Playing. Was I forced to think like a spy? Yes, I did. But was I really roleplaying or simply following the game basic hints and rules to beat it? I think my experience in the merciless game leans towards the latter.

 

[Alex_Steel]

Roleplaying to an RPG is like formal costume is to poker. No relevance to the game itself whatsoever, but the snobs still demand you to comform to it.

Role playing has no relevance to a Rocket Propelled Grenade. What else could RPG mean in this case?

 

[J1M]

But does anyone try to improve Deus Ex? No.

Warren Spector tried. It resulted in his studio closing. Now he makes games about Mickey Mouse.

 

[King Crispy]

Ironically, "role-playing" in a single player CRPG is more important than in a MMORPG.

Sure, you can get away with not doing so in either, but self-benefit and satisfaction is attained by doing so in the former case, pointless LARPing faggotry and possible ridicule in the latter.

PnP is another story entirely.

When I'm playing a good computer roleplaying game, I self-impose a lot of stuff. I'm frequently eschewing what might be the best weapons, or armor, or whatever, if I know possessing those things is going to detract from what I feel is the game's true spirit, or, more accurately, what I feel as its player its true intent is. I actually love the points in a good RPG when I have to sit and think for a few minutes about a decision I must make where on one hand I may receive an excellent reward or on the other I'll stay true to my character. I almost always side on staying within the role.

Why do I do that? What's the point? No one's looking over my shoulder. Only I know what I'm doing in the game and there is no "cheating". Why not just load up on every possible spell, cheese out of the game every possible treasure, and milk the thing for all it's worth? Because doing so defeats the purpose of playing the thing in the first place IMO. OTOH I occassionally rail at imbalance or poor design choices unfairly imposed upon me, the innocent and well-meaning roleplayer. Cue the Cazadores argument.

I rarely play MMO's any more. I never PnP anymore, and I barely did when I was younger. Not saying there's anything wrong with it/them, it's just that in my mind they're always disappointing and unfulfilling. Only in my mind, only my image of what my character is and what he'll do in the world (and not do) is adequate.

I am a virtuous paladin. I am Geralt (groan, but still valid). I decide, not someone else.

That's why I've personally always felt that power gaming and min-maxing single player games is pointless, but to each his own, and that's a separate conversation.

 

[Machocruz]

RP, in my opinion, doesn't need to go beyond creating or choosing a character according to what kind of tools you wish to meet the challenges of the game with. If you choose a particular class or collection of stats, skills, and abilities,you are bound to playing that role according to those things. If you play a Paladin, you are playing a person who normally is skilled in melee combat, has limited spellcasting, altruistic. The personality or manner of speech are secondary to this, added accouterments from the player. Even within sheer mechanics, there is freedom to "role play." Maybe your Paladin is dumb, a glass cannon, defensive, offensive, bad at spellcasting, likes archery, dislikes heavy armor. You'd be handicapping yourself, but the system allows you to make that choice and will react to it.

This is where people say "then any game where you play a character who has certain abilities and limitations is a role-playing game." But they are ignoring the additional framework that was put in place by D$D and most PnP games that followed, as if they could distill a complex and comprehensive genre to one defining element ; and the fact that stats provide a granular malleability that other genres do not come close to. You can decide HOW good the character is at what they do, and the system supports and enforces your decision. In an action game, you would have to "pretend" that Max Payne is not a superhuman gunslinger, which we would be LARP.

People take RP too literally, or expect too much out of the term.

 

[Renegen]

Wow, glad to see that the Codex is really expediant with all the thoughts. Renegan, you especially brought up some good points about games not traditionally considered CRPGs, but the way you have to play the game forces you to act like a character. In this way you are not just choosing the best dialogue option or something similar, but the most comfortable way to play the game. Looking at it this way, the RPing is not neccesarilly a conscious effort meant to appease NPCs as if they were real people (the synergy of shared improv to players' entertainment does not exist).

...Look, in PnP, the options available is only limited by your imagination (within constraint of the PnP system of course) and how tolerant your DM is to your ideas on how to solve certain situations.

If you take the immersive Spy-game example like KGB where the DM is nonexistant and only tolerate certain paths or else face immediate failure (GAME OVER), you have to realize it's completely different and it's not Role Playing. Was I forced to think like a spy? Yes, I did. But was I really roleplaying or simply following the game basic hints and rules to beat it? I think my experience in the merciless game leans towards the latter.

I think you completely missed the point of death in KGB. It's not meant to be a penalty, but rather a way to get you deeper into the story. And of course it's also a way to make you afraid of death and of making you act more spy-like.

There are obvious ways that the game kills you, such as not knowing who the next contact in the chain is or not knowing who to trust. The game never really tells you what the correct answer is, it's all up to you figuring it out. And if you get it wrong, you die. Which actually is the nicest way possible of the game telling you that's the wrong answer. The effect is that you spend a lot of time thinking about the people you meet and about everything that they said. You also to piece together the web of relationships between everyone you are interested in. How many games can say? You even get killed for not figuring out how to decipher secret codes correctly! Which leads you to study cryptology.

Although a seperate issue from this thread, the way death in KGB is handled is brilliant. Every time you die, you know why, and therefore you know what to do differently next time. By comparison, almost every adventure game before and since has a moment where you get stuck and you don't know why and the only way out is frantic pixel hunting and using every item on everything on the screen. You never do that in KGB.

The way death in KGB is handled is like bargaining for information. The game wants you to start acting and thinking like the KGB agent you are. And if you fail, it gives up more information about what you missed or should do.

And going back to your message RK47, I don't think you understood at all what I meant. In fact, maybe you should define immersion for me. A lot of FPS are immersive, but they don't create what I mentioned in those games.

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

everyone. I enjoyed the thoughts that maybe RPing can be a self-authored imaginary story rather than just to bolster entertainment in a PnP group and that RPing is can still be RPing even with only the tools you have (as the customization and items in a CRPG). With these ideas in mind, could you see yourself RPing in whatever character-based game you play as Renegen infers? Then again, there are things you can't control like your character's dialog and cutscenes, but in the broad sense (under these ideas if I understand them correctly) these features matter only slightly as role-playing at it's core is in an individual player's head and actions taken in the game. So, no, not every game with characters (as opposed to Tetris) is an RPG (in the sense no game commands a player bind themselves to an alternate persona), but all of these games one can in some way graft themselves into. Do any of you try to hold to this playstyle? Have I broken the fifth wall where the in-game characters here me talking about them!?!!? :/ THOUGHTS?