Person vs. `Puter

[hong]

It's a nonsensical description of a limitation. CRPGs have difficulty settings, TRPGs do not. Why? Because TRPGs are not limited to any particular difficulty setting, any consistency. You can stick a Tarasque in a dungeon for a 1st level adventurer.

The trick to reconciling this with Dr Strangemonkey's statement is to realise that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

[pawsplay]

This speaks more of technology level then anything.

The human brain at this point is still a much better DM then a computer brain.

At some point, I have no doubt we will create an artificial intelligence capable of creating new patterns and solving problems with said new patterns.

At that point CRPGs will be = to TRPGs, if not better.

At that point, they won't be in the same genre. You can teach an AI to run a traditional RPG, but putting an AI in charge of a MMO gets you... nothing. If you posit a CRPG full of intelligent objects, that's a whole different game.

(As the AI would be much faster at handling off the beaten path scenarios.)

I believe otherwise. I used to study computer science, and I'm currently in mental health. If I had to predict something, it would be that by the time an AI could beat a modern human brain at this task, our brains will be that much better.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

The trick to reconciling this with Dr Strangemonkey's statement is to realise that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Another trick would be to recognize that as a player I may have more control over how much of a whiny jerk or sadistic bastard the electronic computer is than the human computer.

 

[pawsplay]

Here's where I'm coming from:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=228449

A definition of a role-playing game:
1. Narrative Principle: A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events.
2. Action Resolution: Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules.
3. Immersive Persona: At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions "as if" that character.
4. Freedom Principle: Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.


CRPGs fail on multiple counts.

1. Rarely is a CRPG narrative, although it can be. KOTOR is. City of Heroes it not... the Clockwork King is constantly being defeated, and Atlas Park never gets any better.
2. Actions are resolved mechanistically using a set of rules, and player input. There is no collaboration, there is not even feedback... an unanticipated action might even crash the game.
3. This one passes.
4. This one it fails. Only actions programmed into the game can be attempted.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I believe otherwise. I used to study computer science, and I'm currently in mental health. If I had to predict something, it would be that by the time an AI could beat a modern human brain at this task, our brains will be that much better.

Interesting, can you appreciate then the irony of the negative stance on this issue versus the original meaning of the term computer?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Let's say you change the rules. That makes you a game designer. But you still can't go anywhere you haven't mapped or do anything not allowed by the rules set.

I can download new maps, created by others. I can change the rules set. True this can be done in ttrpgs too. But *only* by the DM. As the majority of ttrpgers are players, not DMs, that means crpgs (of a certain sort) offer more freedom than ttrpgs.

Um, no. TRPGs don't even have plots, as such.

It depends what you mean by plot. An example of what I'm talking about. A DM is running a fairly sandbox style game. All the other players decide they want to slay the dark lord. I want to join the thieves guild and nick stuff. Looks like I'm sh-t outta luck. Crpgs would've let me do this, ttrpgs restrict my freedom.

Or lets say the DM isn't very sandbox-oriented, is pressed for time and has bought a scenario or an adventure path. As players we really have to follow the scenario or there's no game. Again, a sandbox crpg would have allowed a lot more freedom. The human DM in this case only has time to prepare one scenario. The computer otoh, has hundreds prepared.

That's also true of a CRPG, you're just your own DM.

Exactly right. I'm my own DM. That's why I have more freedom.

What does that have to do with anything?

It shows that computers can be a lot more accommodating than people.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you are comparing what you can do as a CRPG modder or designer, then you need to compare that to what a DM can do, not just a player.

Players outnumber DMs by a significant margin. I'm talking about the experience of the majority.

 

[pawsplay]

Interesting, can you appreciate then the irony of the negative stance on this issue versus the original meaning of the term computer?

Do you mean, "an accountant?" If so, I don't sense the irony, no, other than computers originally being human.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Here's where I'm coming from:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=228449

A definition of a role-playing game:
1. Narrative Principle: A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events.
2. Action Resolution: Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules.
3. Immersive Persona: At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions "as if" that character.
4. Freedom Principle: Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.


CRPGs fail on multiple counts.

1. Rarely is a CRPG narrative, although it can be. KOTOR is. City of Heroes it not... the Clockwork King is constantly being defeated, and Atlas Park never gets any better.
2. Actions are resolved mechanistically using a set of rules, and player input. There is no collaboration, there is not even feedback... an unanticipated action might even crash the game.
3. This one passes.
4. This one it fails. Only actions programmed into the game can be attempted.

I really disagree with your analysis here:

1.) If this is a functional value for narrative then printed books also fail at conveying narrative. Alice is always falling down the rabitt hole, Jack is always chopping the bean stalk, and Frodo is always fat and slightly bored in the shire.

2.) There are differences in tolerance, but the function is still the same. Further some of your claims here don't work on face value. Of course there's collaboration and feedback. A computer game will stop working if you stop feeding it data and interacting with it. RPGs more so than others.

3.) Agreed.

4.) By the definition you give there is no sensible way to interpret CRPGs as failing. The immersive framework functions as the limitation of possible actions in both mediums. The tolerances are different in both scope and value, but in neither my MilSF CRPG nor my MilSF TRPG can your character move the adventure forward by suddenly deciding to turn into a dragon and burninate the city.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Do you mean, "an accountant?" If so, I don't sense the irony, no, other than computers originally being human.

Computers weren't accountants, but otherwise you're on the right track, just give it time.