(inspired from Walt Frietag: the LP in Solo CRPGs? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15124))
Let's say that you've logged into a big old MMORPG and you're running around the system with thousands of other players, role-playing merrily away in all the usual ways.
All the usual and well-understood principles of role-playing apply, and everyone is happy. Or possibly they don't, but let's assume for a moment that they do.
Then someone tells you: What, didn't you know? Those are not other people. They're all NPCs run by the computer.
You thought they sounded terse.
Now that you know this, does everything radically change? Do you toss SIS and LP and all the other RP principles out the window? Do they really suddenly stop having any relevance?
(If you think mistaking computer players for human players is patently absurd, allow me to refer you to AOLiza (http://fury.com/aoliza/), among numerous other examples.)
In my opinion, learning the nature of the other players changes nothing at all. But I'm interested to see what other people have to say on it.
Cheers,
Roger
Let's say you've developed romantic feelings for one of the "players," until you find out it's AI.
Do your feelings change? Do they suddenly stop having any relevance?
I think in either case you had a misconception of what was going on. So yes, that changes things.
From this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9833), here's a list of other threads on the topic:
Questioning Jack Spencer Jr.'s view of solo play (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8029)
Non-electric interactive solo entertainment (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7944)
The limits of role-playing: solitaire (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7632)
Waxing solo (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3970)
d20 solo adventuring (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3929)
Solo RPGs? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2934)
My personal take, phrased in terms that seem currently important to me: I'm 100% confident that the interpersonal value of Nar play can only be fully realized with other actual human beings in close communication (face-to-face being unquestionably best). That said . . . I do think the same framework mostly applies. "Talking to yourself" (while being fooled otherwise - or not) is a type of conversation. And it has its' place.
But generally, I prefer involving those other people,
Gordon
Roger,
I believe that a large part of the MMORPG experience is the players abilities to distance themselves from their characters and even more so the players of the other characters. When one is playing a tabletop RPG one is interacting with other players. They might be doing it through their characters, but it is the other players who are ultimately interacting with.
In an MMORPG you can not interact with the other players. At best you interact with what ever persona the other player decides to put on. Often they just talk through their character and only interact with players in that way.
So does it matter whether you are interacting with an AI which can pass the Turing Test or a real person? If your goal is to have fun playing a game then I'd say no, not really. If you goal is to achieve true social interaction with others then yes, it matters a lot.
Best,
Bill
Quote from: RogerNow that you know this, does everything radically change? Do you toss SIS and LP and all the other RP principles out the window? Do they really suddenly stop having any relevance?
Your still playing with a real human. The real human who coded those NPC's. The NPC's are his creative contribution just like someone talking to you during table top is.
The only major change is that you've realised the other guy isn't listening to your creative contribution. You either accept his contribution, or walk away.
Which has happened often enough in table top games, I think, if RPG.net is anything to go by.
Quote from: Noon
The only major change is that you've realised the other guy isn't listening to your creative contribution. You either accept his contribution, or walk away.
But isn't this in a sense quite important: the knowledge that someone actually looks at your creative works and can appreciate them?
Quote from: Eva DeinumBut isn't this in a sense quite important: the knowledge that someone actually looks at your creative works and can appreciate them?
Can't you do that yourself?
Quote from: Eva Deinum
But isn't this in a sense quite important: the knowledge that someone actually looks at your creative works and can appreciate them?
Yes, this is my position also. Even with other players, the degree to which they "get you" strongly affects the experience. As an AI cannot possibly "get you" at all (but could merely simulate "getting you"), the experience of "computer RPing" is a different beast. I enjoy CRPGs even though I don't consider them to be
role playing since I define it as having more than one participant in the act. I cannot consider AI to be another participant since I hold that sentience is required to interact on a meaningful level.
But, the whole issue of interaction and AI has a deep current in Theory of Minds (and Souls) debates, which would not seem profitable for us.
Quote from: Paul Hebble
Can't you do that yourself?
In theory: yes. However, a little appreciation every now and than makes it far more rewarding.
It probably differs from person to person how important this is: doing something useful before you die (just to kick in some psychology).
Quote from: Eva DeinumBut isn't this in a sense quite important: the knowledge that someone actually looks at your creative works and can appreciate them?
Yes. By saying there's no major change, I'm saying this isn't a complex situation to look at all. All you've really found out is that your being ignored.
No major change. Now, does that minor change have major effects? Oh yeah! Starting with what your question suggests.
Quote from: NoonYes. By saying there's no major change, I'm saying this isn't a complex situation to look at all. All you've really found out is that your being ignored.
No major change. Now, does that minor change have major effects? Oh yeah! Starting with what your question suggests.
If it can have such great effects, is it just to call it a "minor" change?
As it's not yet been mentioned in the thread, I thought I'd mention the game .hack/Infection from Bandai.
.hack/Infection is a single-player CRPG that simulates an online MMORPG world. All the other players are computer controlled. They talk, exchange idle chatter, and so on.
You can add them to buddy lists and there's an in-game message board and emails, a desk-top interface and so on.
Although conversation repeats after a few interactions, if someone was to sit down with this game already running and not know it was a single-player game they might believe it was an MMORPG, at least at first. Whether you could form a relationship with the other "players" is more debatable I guess.
Cheers,
Chris
=====
www.madketchup.co.uk -- It's mad (but it's not ketchup)
Gordon has cited several of the important threads on this. In one of them I've made the argument that the computer in a solo CRPG is the equivalent of a poor player--that is, there is something of an intelligence making game decisions based on a personal (programmed) agendum, but he's not terribly good at social interactions.
I make this claim because I foresee a time when AI will be sufficiently sophisticated that such programs will be able to run characters with genuine gamist, simulationist, and narrativist agenda. When that time comes, we will be comparing how well they do this, not whether they are successful. The worst of those programs will probably be comparable to the best of our current ones, but will still be regarded as players in the game. If that is so, then our current versions are players in the game as they are--they just are very limited in their ability to play.
--M. J. Young