The Shadowclan Dark Moot

[Azh]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

Interesting article. Too long to copy it here. Here's an excerpt from the section on UO.

[Hin]

interesting stuff in there, but in the end it's just nerd rage about definition of terms and nostalgia.

I don't agree "Compared to the role-playing dimension of D&D, the stats and battles were only minor aspects.". Combat, creature stats, dice rolling, was ALWAYS the central part of most RPGs from their birth. Sure there are ways to play the game to accentuate the RP elements - i.e. character interaction and stuff. In the end people want to do what is fun. The authors of D&D thought ripping the heads of countless goblins was fun, and they designed the game to primarily revolve around that from the start.

When you were a kid, you played RPGs to f some s up, get the treasure, pillage a town on the way, gain levels and become powerful by padding stats. Sure there was some GM-injected RP stuff, but it was if ever very light and just a pause for the next headripping sequence. There's a reason the game was called Dungeons and Dragons, not Inns and Interesting social aspects of the interactions of the days of yore. I'm not saying it was never a part of it, but in the end, we wanted the dice to roll on the critical damage table.

An example of fun: Battlestar Galactica the board game. Not what you would call an RPG. But i think it's a GREAT example of what an RPG should be like. You have the core game which involves shooting cylons, moving fighters and space ships, resolving stat decrease choices, etc. But a huge if not MASSIVE part of the game is the meta-game where the players have to discover/guess who of them is a hidden traitor. This makes the game an RPG. While we're not actively pretending that we are cylons (or pretending to be cylons pretending to be human), but it seeps into the game play, and the discussions that erupt during play often take on an RPG atmosphere where people will accidentally go in character "i know a cylon when i see one, you toaster", "I'm not a cylon? how could i be? i saved you guys asses when we had that riot break out on one of the transport ships", etc. That is what roleplaying, getting excited about the fictional character and universe he lives in, at times talking to others as if you were him, acting as how he would act.

In a way roleplaying is Theatre, but with an open or loose script.

Theatre: Ok Bill, you walk in on your wife as she is in bed with your best friend -- the script tells you to act outraged, and you begin to cry.
RPG: Ok Bill you walk in on your wife in bed with another man - what do you do?.

The actor in an RPG could say "i have superpowers, so i blow up the whole world, sinking it and the solar system into a black hole", but the "script" constrains him to certain actions - the game rules, his character sheet, and his character writeup defining how the character would react, how he could react. The actor in a Theatre is much more strictly limited. Where the actor has freedom of choice is how he wants to portray the actions the script defines will occur. Of course, there's some improv that occurs on even the most rigorous set, where the Director changes his mind on minute details of the story based on the actor's input, but it's not living action-reaction as in an RPG.

RPGs in computer games started as single player games, where the player easily could be immersed in the RP aspect of the world. There were no other PC to talk to, only NPCs who all were also 'role playing', so there was no choice of not role playing in single player RPGs.

I see two basic ways to play a traditional RPG, with various level of gray in it.

- How would this character react to situations.
- How would I react to situations.

I think the perfect RP comes in the middle somewhere. You take the character you play, and you play him acting as you would act in the situations you encounter, but with knowledge limited to the character's mind. I.e. you wouldn't in a fantasy setting say: I invent gunpowder, a gun, and a car and drill for oil, refine it, and drive to the dragon's den, and shoot him in the face. Even more subtle things like: this world has bows, but no crossbows, so i build a crossbow and now have a huge ranged armor penetrating capability. The player is limited to the world he is in.

You could tweak this act (unless it's a rule by the game) by saying: My character is religiously devout. He will act and react based on this premise. There are no tables to roll on for such character flavor details, and sometimes the player might have to perform an action that actually will end up being negative for himself, but in order not to do so (or to do so) would break his character, and thus immersion. The player may claim that his player just gained insight that made him able to see outside the character limitation for a brief moment, but again is that just a cheap way of "winning the game"?

But I digress.

In today's MMOs. The rulebook is the game server. It dictates where the bounds of the world is, where the player will die if he walks, how NPCs react and how much damage he does when he swings. The game world in MMORPGs might seem dynamic like P&P RPGs, but is it? No! It's usually a frightfully static world often even MORE static than single player CRPGs. In fact I think most modern MMOs evolved not from single player RPGs, but from First Person Shooters. I would even dare to accuse UO to be evolved from a FPS, fetching themes from Ultima. WoW also was the offspring of an FPS, fetching thematic material from the Warcraft series. And the game does only what we all wished for: We wanna get to the next headbashing spot to get more levels and get more powerful to get more treasure.

A contrast: In a p&p RPG, the adventure, the NPCs the dungeon, and its denizens are always all unknown. The game is a lot more about exploration and interaction to find out more about the quest target, than it is running head first in blasting stuff up. More of a spec ops than a full frontal assault. In MMOs, there is a finite set of adventures monsters and dungeons. When we go into a dungeon for the 100th time, we know what to expect. We know the "pulls" we know the traps, we know the boss fights. There is no reason to explore, hesitate, or contemplate. Just run in there and lop some heads off.

If MMOs worked like P&P RPGs, after you cleared Deadmines, it would disappear, or be filled with friendly miners. But you're not playing a single player game, in fact you're not playing an MMORPG, you're playing a single player RPG, where other players run around in your world all on parallel paths. In fact, Blizzard has thought about this too, and therefore is starting to use Phasing in zones where if you trigger an event, huge game-changing events take place. Of course this has its problems too. i digress again.


Why does accidental occur when i play Battlestar Galactica with my friends? I would claim because there is an unknown, a mystery to be solved - and it's vital to winning the game. Why doesn't even intended RP take place in an MMO? because it's inconsequential, there are no mysteries, there is no need for player interaction - the other players in your group might as well be well-designed AI. And to the extent interaction occurs, it's based on who stands where at what point. Now take a game like Battle Master, Shadowbane, Darkfall, Wurm, or ATITD: The whole game is designed to encourage player interaction, you have to cooperate and plan to build cities. Other players that see you RP immediately gain a sense of immersion in the game. Even people who don't roleplay might slip into accidental RP "by the fury of odin!" *shakes fist* when negotiating peace or trade contracts. The fact of the matter is that the PLAYER makes the RP, the game is a poor enforcer of RP.


so in the end, i believe a game that revolves around player interaction, cooperation, and conflict more than on a combat level are the ones that will have a chance of creating RP environments.

edit: I also wanted to add i think MMOs need GM-run events to enhance immersion/ rp capability,

edit2: After reading the article to its full extent, yeah: the article is pretty much just a self gratifying elitist nostalgia trip about what's "pure" RPGs.

I'm a bit confused on his definition of what a real RPG would be: But i assume UO where the players act as if they live in that time, and don't know their stats.

Back in the day, stat and number crunching was always part of the game. You don't attack the balrog at level 1, you gain some epic lootz and levels first. In P&P RPGs, if you have someone acting out of character, what are the repercussions? If you start asking for cigarettes or talking about elvis playing an RPG with friends, that would be like you don't want to play the game and just are trying to mess the game up for everyone else.

There it is: Part of a P&P RPG is to RP. There is NO part of an MMO to RP. In that he is correct, RPG doesn't belong in the title of MMORPG, they shoul d be called MMOFPS (first-person-slasher/shooter).

But there is also where the author makes a huge flaw: Language ambiguity. If there is one thing i loathe more than people using language/grammar inappropriately, it's language nazis . (the people who think there's a real difference between acronym and abbreviation).

I think he also fails on the fact that MMORPG IS NOT a P&P RPG on the computer, and never really has been.

He seems to look down on dungeon crawler type slasher games with action elements, but why? Why can't people who enjoy these games enjoy them? If a lot of people enjoy them, why can't they be popular?

The Author is just an elitist social RPG wanker who is lamenting about how people don't respect "His" way of RPGing.

[Gorgok]

I still think calling UO a RPG isn't getting down to the truth. It lacked so much of the game part like the modern stuff, other than 'being a game.' It should be called a RPS instead. Or simply a sim (since technically even in flight sims you are playing the role of a pilot...).

Getting that through to developers could bring back RP to 'RPG's.

I probably should read the full article though....

[Hin]

bioware's definition of RPG

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62087

[greevil]

On the one hand, I sympathize with people who lament the lack of roleplaying in MMORPGS. On the other hand, I agree with Hin that D&D is not all that much about RP, either. That's why the XG group dropped the official rulebooks by some time in 1975 and starting writing our own rules.

In a PnP game, you can emphasize RP much much more than the official rules of most RPG systems tend to do. The fundamental approach needs to be that you are writing fiction by performing it; that your GM's job is to provide constraints that are not biased toward any specific character and that keep things moving toward fun; and that any rule may be bent or broken as long as it increases the fun of the game.

It's tougher to achieve the right style in a computer game because of the things that get automated. It's much easier to game a computer than a GM, so it' easier for players to subvert the game into harming someone else's fun instead of helping it. In a PnP group, you just don't invite people back if they fail to cooperate constructively. A machine is unable to make that call.

MMORPGs tend to discourage roleplay and emphasize combat and loot, because those are the things that are easy to automate. An actual computer roleplaying game is a research project, and its goal may not be possible at all.

Still, I do think it's possible to make an MMORPG that's a lot friendlier to storytelling and roleplaying than what we see on the market. Whether such a game would make money is a different question, of course.

For example, imagine that Blizzard suddenly said to us, "okay, we'll change WoW any way you story-and-roleplay people want." Can you think of things that would make WoW friendlier to story and roleplay? I'll bet you can. I think I can.

[Hin]

not an itemized list particular to Wow, but just some thoughts.

gameplay that encourages cooperation.

I like that there are some things you can do alone in MMOs, but in order to get socialization going you need to add constraints so that certain content needs to be done by people together, at the same time. Whether it's raising the guild barn, klomping humies, or plowing a field, i think there is a distinct lack of teamwork efforts in MMOs these days. Cooperative crafting would be a fantastic addition. Cooperative quests. Sure we can already do this, but i wish there were some quests that when the story played out, it adapted to who was involved in the group doing it.

gameplay that encourages diplomacy

its all fine and good to have a roleplaying community within the guild, but i think shadowclan shines when we communicate outward. i don't know exactly what features would be added, but if the gameplay requires a high degree of communication between guilds or clans, i think it would be in the favor of roleplay. Because if another entity needs to discuss an issue with shadowclan they have to accept our roleplaying as part of who we are, and who knows it might even rub off a bit on them. Cross faction talk and interaction would be under this. Tribute taking from albais, etc.

Game Master-run events.This is a throwback to pen and paper ideas, but having a Game master running a server-wide quest or whatnot, all in-character, choosing to progress the event based on the roleplay actions the players involved take. Having the ability to get griefers killed or removed from the area. all in character of course. Someone starts disrupting/ganking the quest participants, a giant demon spawns and eats the offender etc.

[Xorv]

Darn got me reading two great walls of text, the linked article and Hin's post. Allow me to hit back with my own wall of text...

I agree with some of the article, but ultimately he see's RPGs as being statically defined by PnP games, which I don't agree with. PnP, computer, 'live action', are all just tool sets to give us a game about playing a role in a fictional landscape. Each tool has its own strengths and failings and unique parameters of gameplay, but RPGs aren't defined by these things.

I think he is right that within computer RPGs player/designer community the definition of RPG has been warped to be considered all about stats and liner stat progression. Also, that many of these game's are only very loosely RPGs.

For me at least ideally what I want from an RPG is to be able to take a role in a detailed fantasy or sci fi setting and be as fully immersed in that world as possible to the point of actually being there, but shy of suffering the full extent of the risks of really being there, such as actual death. Obviously for this you would need a tool like Startrek's "HolloDeck" which doesn't exist. However, the example is still worth making since it demonstrates the direction I think RPGs should be going, if not actually coming close to achieving.

Themepark game's like WoW are a big step in the wrong direction for bettering RPGs in almost every regard. Sandbox game's like UO, SB, DFO only got it partially right, they've given players more freedom of action and the ability to somewhat shape the world they live in, but the world itself and its NPC denziens have almost no freedom and little capacity to shape the player, beyond stats and the physics that govern interaction in the game world.

What's needed is a world that really lives with or without actual players existing in its domain. NPCs need as much as technology will allow to have their own motivations and goals, and act on those within the game world irrespective of player interaction. Perhaps key NPCs could be controlled by professional storyteller/actors rather than AI. There's no set quests, no static mob spawns, repeatable dungeons with boss mobs at the end. The game probably wouldn't need artificial rules protecting the lore or RP because the game world will sort that out itself by NPC reactions to a player that ignores or breaks the lore. Players need to be encouraged to interact with one another, but they also need to be encouraged to interact with the game world, and have all those interaction manifest in the framework of the fantasy setting.

The typical MMORPG player even the typical self described RPer isn't capable of replacing the need for real NPCs as described above. Without which the the fantasy world's immersive integrity collapses.

A number of other things would greatly improve RP in these games:

One character per server (DFO)

Move away from long grindy character progression and put more emphasis on the player's ability to utilize his or her characters abilities than the number of levels they have grinded (Mortal Online and EVE in a way)

Character specialization, you can't do everything (Most existing games, but not DFO and EVE, the two biggest Sandboxes atm)

Allow players to fail and suffer the consequences of failure of the bad choices they make. (No game really has this, in fact I would imagine that most game developers consider the opposite a cardinal rule of game design. Nevertheless not allowing players to really fail is a serious failing of MMORPGs in terms of being good RPGs)

[Vikarn]

Sometimes, the natural state of role-play is infectious. It just takes a skilled Game Master/Story Teller. I've been in a few LARPs in conventions around the states where Anonymous has tried to roll in trolling. Persistent, emphatic role-playing from the crew had the lul-seekers lurking more and even falling into the game and participating themselves.

Past Bioware has always done a pretty good job of pulling you into the mentality of the character. (Play some Baldur's Gate 2, doubters!) Bethesda has been doing job with immersion too. I believe that immersion is not just an elitist buzz-word. Immersion and Role-Play go hand-in-hand. While killing Fun (Being a Fun-Hater) is anathema to the RP experience. If the process of being in the role becomes a chore or a drone and loses it's fun it's going to lose it's appeal, people play games to be entertained.

Dragon Age: Origins was solid on that, I found myself being absorbed even though it was pretty standard flair for an RPG. Towards the pre-landsmeet and Orzamar I got a bit of discomfort and almost stopped playing. I couldn't find the cause to give a darn about the Dwarves and their self-manufactured plight. (Both the options were completely unlikable, but I liked the lesson of "There is no good choice only the lesser of two evils") Hope there wasn't too much Spoilersauce in there.

Now MMORPGs are a different sort. People who play MMORPGs who want to role-play, they're gonna role-play, and its incredibly hard to convert someone to role-play if they're a non-roleplayer. They don't see the point. (I've TRIED with the Better Half but they insist on just raiding and gearing...) Not all of them Fun-Haters though, and if whispered or spoken to maturely they'll provide sufficient respect.

I don't know how to convert a non-RPer into a RPer, or a casual gamer into a hardcore gamer. If I did, it would make my relationship so much more fulfilling. (Am I right fellas?) I would can it and sell it. I do know how to start a witch hunt from a game of Are You a Werewolf? And turn an entire floor of a convention into a massive game of Paranoia that had even innocent bystanders walking through to get to their panel or the artists ally joining in. But that was all environment, immersion and passionate playing from like-minded individuals.

I do believe in the Power of Fun though, and that if you make it fun, they will come.

[K'Dahbruh]