Computers beat up my role player

[Raven Crowking]

The person doing the adjudicating in Final Fantasy is a team of programmers in Japan, years before.

That difference doesn't really matter to anyone.

If this thread proves nothing else, it proves the last statement quoted above to be categorically wrong.

RC

 

[Shadeydm]

I could easily create a D&D setting where, for weird magical reasons, monsters self-resurrect, and run a game based in that setting. Are you saying that I wouldn't be running a roleplaying game? In fact coming back from the dead with regularity is a distinctive feature of D&D compared to rpgs, something the game has always had in common with video games.

Yes I am sure if ones tries hard enough one can find or craft an exception to anything yet this doesn't really change anything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But an RPG itself is just a simulation, so its different. Unless you think people playing Final Fantasy are playing a simulation of a simulation! But, no, a simulation of D&D would be playing a game where you control a player who then controls a PC. That would be a simulation of D&D. What's going on is not pretending to be pretending. In SWSE I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In KOTOR I pretend to be Roland the Jedi. In neither case am I pretending to be playing a game in which I'm pretending to be Roland the Jedi.

Except that this is exactly the effect of having that team of guys in Japan program the game years before it is played.

In a role-playing game, I am directly controlling a PC, and am able to attempt any action that I can think of, with a degree of success depending upon how clever and difficult that action is judged to be.

In a computer game, I am controlling a PC whose actions are limited by the actions that the programmer(s) could think of. In essence, I am playing following the limitations and script of another player, engaging in a simulation of a simulation.

And that, as you point out, is the difference. A DM who can adjudicate my choices now allows me to make the decisions as to what I should be able to try. That makes me the player. The program has already encoded the potential decisions, and I am merely "looking" for what the primary player (programer) I am simulating is allowed to do.

RC

 

[Shadeydm]

It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.

So where are you going with this are you saying that an RPG doesn't require a DM or are you saying that the computer or server is the DM?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The difference matters to me. In fact it is crucial. It is why I go out of my way to take time away from my family & my faith to play TRPGs yet I've never taken the time to finish Final Fantasy X. & finishing FFX would be a lot easier since it would not involve co-ordinating the schedules of 4 to 5 adults.

I want to understand the difference because I believe it can only help me improve my TRPG experience. (& maybe even my CRPG experience.)

It's a little bizarre that anyone would take time away from family or faith to play a game.

But more to the point, what I see is you expressing a preference for a certain type of RPG. That's okay, but it doesn't really require you to re-define what "RPG" is accepted to mean. Why re-define the word to be so exclusive if all of it really is simply a case for which one you like better?

You haven't bothered to beat FFX, and you'd rather go over to Eddie's house and game, you can notice the difference between the games without calling one a "TRUE RPG" and the other one some sort of "Untrue RPG" (which is, despite your intentions, pretty condescending).

It's a bit different. I see the programming (or development) team as being analogous to the creaters of a tabletop rpg's rules - they're like the Wizards of the Coast game designers/developers. They created the rules of the game. With tabletop games there's an additional layer interpreting player actions - the DM - who can override the rules.

The Square team that created Final Fantasy told you what world you'd be in, what character classes are available, and what adventures to go on. It gave villains and NPC's lines ("I, GARLAND, WILL KNOCK YOU DOWN!") and it gave the setting coherence as it gives descriptions of the events and world you interact with.

DMs do the same thing. Certainly, that's more than the D&D core rulebooks do.

The Square team is kind of a railroady DM (there's only one main adventure and you pretty much have to do it, since there's nothing else to do other than combat, but sometimes there are hidden combats or secret adventures you can find or not), but those who play like the stories, so they'll be happily lead by the nose.

Compare this with some other computer RPG's, and you have DMs who aren't as railroady, like the ones in Ultimta Online or even WoW.

If this thread proves nothing else, it proves the last statement quoted above to be categorically wrong.

True enough, I suppose I was using overly large brush strokes there. I guess it would be more correct to say that no one outside of a hardcore obsessive fan-base accepts the notion that these are truly deep divides.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I could easily create a D&D setting where, for weird magical reasons, monsters self-resurrect, and run a game based in that setting.

Yes, you could. And, presumably, that would be you making the decision to do so, and it would be a decision that you and your group could change at any time during the game. In other words, your statement that you were going to run such a game would in no way mandate you to disallow PCs to change the status quo.

Moreover, in order to follow the cRPG model, you would have to devise a list of potential actions and potential solutions to all problems, as well as preordain how each item of equipment can be used.

However, for all that you might argue that cRPGs are RPGs, I doubt very much that you would run such a game, or that you could find players for such a game as a tabletop game. When people sit down to a role-playing game, they expect a bit more.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

It should be noted that with a crpg the developer team can still be surprised by player actions. For example:

1) Exploits. Bugs which allow players to cheat.
2) Combinations with unanticipated consequences. Much like the combo of Frenzied Berserker, Robilar's Gambit and Deft Opportunist described in another thread.

Player actions in a human rpg are not without limitations. They are limited by:

1) The rules of the game world, its physics.
2) The rules of genre.
3) The game rules.
4) The DM.
5) The other players.

This can actually mean a player is more limited in a human rpg. For instance I might want my PC to do something that's allowed by the rules but that the DM thinks is implausible or unbalancing. In such a case, the presence of the DM isn't enhancing player freedom. It's an additional limitation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Square team that created Final Fantasy told you what world you'd be in, what character classes are available, and what adventures to go on. It gave villains and NPC's lines ("I, GARLAND, WILL KNOCK YOU DOWN!") and it gave the setting coherence as it gives descriptions of the events and world you interact with.

DMs do the same thing. Certainly, that's more than the D&D core rulebooks do.

In a role-playing game, the NPCs are able to ad lib lines (through the DM) and respond to what the players say. They can also change their actions based upon what the players do. Since, in a role-playing game, there is an infinite number of things that the players can say, there is an infinite potential for responses.

Of course, I also wonder how you can suggest that something that prescripts not only the adventure you can do, but also how you can respond to that adventure, as well as what lines can be spoken (or reacted to) by any part is "kind of" railroady.

If you cannot see the difference between unlimited potential in terms of actions, dialogue, decision making, and ad lib, as well as an unlimited potential to create lasting and meaningful change in the game environment, as opposed to simulating a player who has already prescripted the potential actions, dialogue, and decisions you can make, I doubt I can make it clearer.

RC

 

[RFisher]

I have not MUD'ed or IF'ed, so I will ask, do players generally interact through an imaginary filter? Are the lines (e.g., "l" or "-") mentally redrawn by the player as mud-caked passages, rough-hewn rock walls, or the like? If so, that is a strong knock against my point. Numion's example was that s/he did not see the character as an "@," but rather the character.

I suspect that it is the rare player who uses the imaginary filter in a computer game, but I could be wrong.

OK, perhaps a transcript is warranted:

ZORK I: The Great Underground empire
Copyright (c) 1981, 1982, 1983 Infocom, Inc. All rights reserved.
ZORK is a registered trademark of Infocom, Inc.
Revision 88 / Serial number 840726

West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.

>open mailbox
Opening the mailbox reveals a leaflet.

>read leaflet
(taken)
"WELCOME TO ZORK!

ZORK is a game of adventure, danger, and low cunning. In it you will explore some of the most amazing territory ever seen by mortals. No computer should be without one!"

>

The bold bits were typed by the user. The rest were printed by the game.

Interactive fiction (IF) is the new-fangled buzz-word for "text adventure games". They are (generally) text-based. The computer doesn't present visual representation of things, merely text describing them. The user acts by typing (pidgin) English sentences. (Though there are shortcuts for common commands.)

It's a form that can't commercially compete anymore. There are some interesting developments in the amatuer IF world, though. I thought Galatea was quite interesting.

I tend to think of TRPGs as IF with a person taking the computer's role.

MUDs are (at least when I was into them) very similar to IF except that they are multi-player. Most have features that allowed a player with permission (sometimes called "a wizard") to build the world from within the game. In the ones I enjoyed the most, pretty much everyone was a wizard & had a portion of the world they could build as they saw fit.

The only limit to what you could create were what you could describe. Although, getting the game engine to give appropriate responses to other players' interactions with your creations was the real limit. & also--for me--the challenge. LamdaMOO had a pretty sophisticated programming language that could let you do a whole lot, though.

There was a Star Trek MUSH that the users used as a medium for role-playing. I would count it more akin to playing a TRPG via WebRPG than to something like a MMORPG, though. The "rules" of the role-playing tended to be enforced more by consensus than by the software.

 

[RFisher]

It's a little bizarre that anyone would take time away from family or faith to play a game.

Both understand the importance of recreation.

But more to the point, what I see is you expressing a preference for a certain type of RPG. That's okay, but it doesn't really require you to re-define what "RPG" is accepted to mean. Why re-define the word to be so exclusive if all of it really is simply a case for which one you like better?

Yes, I am expressing a preference. I am not redefining anything. I have merely stated what "RPG" means to me--what it has always meant to me. I have been very careful to try & not take issue with how other people use or define terms. Because--for me--that's an insignificant detail. What I care about is understanding what the differences & similarities are.