Computers beat up my role player

[Brazeku]

I have a bit of a problem with this line of thinking.

That's like saying Henry Ford is the man to go to for a definitive term for "automobile". Yet I'm sure his definition would include such things as a brief explanation of the internal combustion engine. After all, that how they were made when they were invented.

So by his standards, I guess an electric car would not qualify as an "automobile" then...

Is my analogy making any sense?

You're drawing a parallel on really shaky ground based on an opinion which is only conjecture on your part.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck - it is a duck.

Unless it's a goose.

 

[Dromdol]

With respect, if anyone has the authority to define what the term "role-playing game" means, it would be Gary Gygax, and I believe that his definition is the best one.

I accepted Mr. Gygax's definition, and then tried to explain how my experience in MMORPGs actually matches the expectations he believes necessary to put the RP in RPG. Others, including Mr. Gygax, have dismissed my personal experiences as invalid, rather than refuting the points offered. Does an RPG require actors and an audience? Does it require a DM? Does it require "boundless" imaginative possibility? Does it require depth of narrative story? Does any, read ANY, artificial limitation exclude the RP from RPG?

I've offered my experience in L2 as a example of a MMORPG providing a rich story environment with actors and audiences co-existing. Some have misinterpreted my experience, arguing that "player sensitive emotional investment" somehow limits the value of the game world. While I would question how that matters in a game that is largely imaginative, it falls very short of encompassing reality. L2 allowed the mechanistic capture of castles. When a guild leader "captured" the castle, it remained in possession of that guild for 2 weeks, until the next siege time allowed other guilds the opportunity. During that time, the possessing guild controlled the tax rates and income of the connected city, they could use the castle as a base of operations, they were responsible for upkeep costs, and for stationing NPC "mercenaries" for castle defense. This wasn't hollow "play pretend", but a very real mechanic with complete in-game support. L2 is currently cited as having a 10% market share, equating to some 2 million accounts.

So that is an example of actors and audiences, participating in a rich, dramatic and MEANINGFUL storyline with a real, mechanical impact on the game. While that meets the large part of the definitions others have offered above, they still reject it as a representation of roleplaying. Others have mentioned the use of the DM in NWN, to much the same response.

Do you know what I dislike? I dislike miniatures. Bluntly, I despise minis. Too many groups I've seen use minis to turn a game I love to play into a tactical military simulation. Spaces and hexes, reach and facing, combat movement and approach all begin to take precedence over the roleplaying events. And frankly, it limits my imagination. The DM drops a Bugbear on the table and says, "Imagine it's a mindflayer", I look at the mini and go, "Doesn't look like a mindflayer." I'd be better off with no representation at all. My mind can imagine a mindflayer. I have difficulty morphing the bugbear mini into a mindflayer mini. I'm not even sure why I need to do so. But some people, they LOVE minis. They adore them. They collect them, and play with them, and pet them, and call them George. And, in the end, I have to admit that minis don't *really* change the RP at all. The groups who focus on tactical wargaming would still be doing it without minis, even if that meant using paperclips, or hasty scribbles on a battlemat. Groups that focus on RP as "playing in character, as actor and audience" would continue to do so, resorting to minis only to clarify the physical realities. (I use pennies myself to this effect, so please, no "how do u rulz the movement?" comments).

I play tabletop D&D and WoW with some of the same guys. Our interactions, socially, are the same in both environments. We talk, we banter, we make stupid jokes. I don't understand why in one situation we're "playing right" and in the other we're "playing wrong". Both situations feel oddly similar. Sure, when I'm DMing at the table, my imagination is the limit. But I can't, not for the life of me, emulate the fluid grace of an MMORPGs combat system. A fight which would occupy seconds on the screen might eat up an hour on the table, during which time there was little "RP", and much focus on mechanical ability to defeat the monster in question. Why is the time spent calculating spell distances, AoOs, combat modifcation adjustments, and comparative movement rates, with D20 mechanical resolution "real roleplaying", but the time I spend talking with my friends about the best way to go about solving an ingame puzzle using ingame information on the computer screen "false roleplaying"?

Several people have mentioned the limits of MMOs. Yes, I'll be the first to jump on that bandwagon. They have some severe limits, both of necessity, and of designer vision. For years, I've wanted certain things that I still haven't gotten from them (some of which I darn well are technically possible). They do have limits, but that implies that table RPGs don't, which doesn't mesh with my experience. Just as the Devs vision limits CRPGs, so too does the DMs limit TRPGs. Someone above pointed out that this shared integration was a good thing, but only when applied to TRPGs. I don't see the difference, but then, I'm reminded daily that the people behind the avatars I see in WoW are very real, and I think many people, including some illustrious notables on this thread, have lost sight of that fact, or sadly enough, never understood it at all.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is roleplaying integral to the game? Y/N

If N, it isn't a roleplaying game. This applies equally to MMOs and PnPs.

Is roleplaying integral to roleplaying games? Doesn't the game first and foremost resolve around the completion of an objective - kill the dragon, rescue the princess, recover the treasure. With roleplaying coming in as limits on what one will do to achieve this objective, for example a paladin won't use torture, an unintelligent character won't use good tactics and so forth. Is the roleplaying integral here, or just a limiting factor on methods?

 

[Hussar]

Dork Tower has captured this debate beautifully:

From the pages of Dragon 349

 

[Raven Crowking]

I accepted Mr. Gygax's definition, and then tried to explain how my experience in MMORPGs actually matches the expectations he believes necessary to put the RP in RPG. Others, including Mr. Gygax, have dismissed my personal experiences as invalid, rather than refuting the points offered.

May I say that I did not see those responses in the same light as you did?

The way I saw it was that Mr. Gygax said that rpgs require apples, and you demonstrated that your experiences included pears. The response was, therefore, that while pears may be similar to apples, they are not the same thing.

This is, IMHO, a valid refutation.

Does an RPG require actors and an audience? Does it require a DM? Does it require "boundless" imaginative possibility? Does it require depth of narrative story? Does any, read ANY, artificial limitation exclude the RP from RPG?

It requires that the direction in which the story can go, and the means by which choices can be resolved, is limited only by the imaginations, desires, and goals of the participants, rather than by what the programmer(s) was able to imagine.

A role-playing game is driven by the choices of the players, which are resolved by the DM (or group of players in some DM-surrogate games), whereas a computer "RPG" is driven by the potential choices programmed into it long before play began.

Do you know what I dislike? I dislike miniatures. Bluntly, I despise minis. Too many groups I've seen use minis to turn a game I love to play into a tactical military simulation. Spaces and hexes, reach and facing, combat movement and approach all begin to take precedence over the roleplaying events. And frankly, it limits my imagination.

I agree with this quite a bit. I think that making the game so mini-centric was one of the real drawbacks of 3.5 over 3.0.

Several people have mentioned the limits of MMOs. Yes, I'll be the first to jump on that bandwagon. They have some severe limits, both of necessity, and of designer vision.

That's the difference, if you accept Gary's definition, right there.

While the DM might have some limits (and we all do), at least you have the potential to do something about that, even if it means running your own game. If the DM is as limited as the computer simulator, refusing to allow any leeway off the pre-programmed path, then I'd agree that that DM is not running a role-playing game. I'd bet Gary would agree, too.


RC

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Yes, but, what he said, other than including the words "skill checks" applies equally to all editions.

IME. YMMV.

Gee!

Whatever happened to dialog between PCs and monsters?

Does anyone recall my humerous little anecdote, "The Giant's Bag"? No computer-run game short of the Starship Enterprise's holodeck could begin to duplicate that sort of play, and encounters of that sort were common in the play of the Greyhawk Campaign...as they should be in all true RPG campaigns.

No hireling or henchman was a mere puppet doing what the PC demanded. They have minds of their own, talk back, are sometimes rebellious or cowardly or reckless.

This debate is certainly a waste of time and effort, because while it is demonstrable that the computer can not curently provide an RPG, those that wish such games were classed as that form of game will attempt to define the RPG to suiyt their view, thus make the dead electroinic "RPG simulation" game into the living human-managed and all-oarticipant interactive RPG.

So I am out of here

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have a bit of a problem with this line of thinking.

That's like saying Henry Ford is the man to go to for a definitive term for "automobile". Yet I'm sure his definition would include such things as a brief explanation of the internal combustion engine. After all, that how they were made when they were invented.

So by his standards, I guess an electric car would not qualify as an "automobile" then...

Is my analogy making any sense?

A more apt analogy would be as follows:

Henry Ford creates an automobile.

Bob Bobson creates a three-wheel machine that he calls an automobile, which derives power from the user pedalling.

Henry Ford says it is not an automobile, because it lacks defining characteristics of an automobile, such as automatic power.

Other people side with Bob Bobson and say that, no, Henry Ford doesn't know what he's talking about.

The tricycle is sold as an automobile.


RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

Is roleplaying integral to roleplaying games? Doesn't the game first and foremost resolve around the completion of an objective - kill the dragon, rescue the princess, recover the treasure. With roleplaying coming in as limits on what one will do to achieve this objective, for example a paladin won't use torture, an unintelligent character won't use good tactics and so forth. Is the roleplaying integral here, or just a limiting factor on methods?

You're using "roleplayng" and "role assumption" and "play acting" as synonyms here. They are not.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You're using "roleplayng" and "role assumption" and "play acting" as synonyms here. They are not.

Yes by 'roleplaying' I mean acting, playing a role. What do you mean by it?