To experience is to know CRPGs

[Jack Spencer Jr]

At the System Matters level, I'd put forward that all computer games have the exact same system.  How do we decide what's true in the game world?  Answer: the computer tells us.  
....
I don't want to derail the convo; you can consider this just a minor terminological quibble if you'd like.

I don't think it's a minor quibble. It's a clairification of what we've been talking about. "the computer tells us" Very good way to look at it.

[Lance D. Allen]

Considering that, as I understood it, mechanics are just a sub-section of system, I think the point is equally valid. I'll also say that the specific points that I talk about are more a matter of interface than pure mechanics, which I view as the actual particulars of how dice are rolled, and how "interaction" is measured and handled. The dice mechanics are mostly transparent, as we rarely ever see anything more than the effect of the action (usually in the form of damage dealt, healed, etc.) but the interface is extremely visible; How you get new abilities, how you put those abilities into effect, and what the result is are all very important in how a given game is taken by an individual.

Either way, I think we're on the same side of the issue. System/Mechanics does indeed matter.

[John Kim]

At the System Matters level, I'd put forward that all computer games have the exact same system.  How do we decide what's true in the game world?  Answer: the computer tells us.  

The mechanics of crpgs vary widely, of course, that's what Walt and Lance are talking about, and Mechanics Matter too.  But as long as computers aren't like people, the process of coming to a consensus about what happens will always be different, fundamentally, from the process of receiving what happens from a computer.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  I mean, the player has input into his character's actions.  How is that different in principle from a traditional tabletop RPG?  To picture it, compare an unimaginative GM who is running a dungeon module with a sophisticated computer program.  On the one hand, the human GM can come up with improvised answers which are impossible for the computer -- but on the other hand a program can have an awful lot of prepared responses to the user.  (This is more true of text-based games.)  

I'm not saying there's no difference between a computer and a human GM, but in both cases the player has input into the resulting narrative by controlling her characters's actions.

One should be careful not to make a lot of assumptions about computer games, just as an outsider shouldn't assume that all tabletop RPGs are D&D.  For example, Emily Short has some very interesting essays and examples of computer-moderated interactive fiction, at http://emshort.home.mindspring.com/index.htm  .  They are definitely different from tabletop RPGs, but they have a fair amount of art and sophistication to them without simply being the computer telling you a story.

[Marco]

I think applying SDM to CRPG's has some difficultys that Vincent and John illustrate.

I'm hard pressed to indicate a GNS decision making mode in CRPG's as the N-option is (IMO) limited (not *missing*--there is an Ultima where the character is attacked by children icons--a player could decided to to use a less-lethal combat mode and declare himself to be knocking them out)--but the "story" is, well, pretty hard-coded ... and while the concept of railroading, again, *does* exist--it's, IMO, very much different than a table-top RPG.

I'd find it to be, mostly, "G" (and the closer the game gets to a story-like end condition, the more strongly G it is ... the more open ended a game is, the more it might be exploration just to "see what's out there."

And for most of the games I think we're talking about the whole social contract element is missing ... which I think, makes it even murkier to analyze that way.

Finally, as I've often held here, words (even beyond 'story') taken from literature are a tricky deal with RPGs, I think they become even trickier when you get to the CRPG (RPG's can be said to have "story" and the character's avatar can be said to be the "protagonist" but that's wildly divergent from literary meanings and, IMO, divergent from RPG's translations of those words as well).

But the question of System Does Matter vs. Mechanics Matter is pretty telling.

I suggest, that in common conversation, System *does* mean Mechanics.

A very convincing case can be made that System = Mechanics + Setting + 'how to play notes' + C (the Constant Of ... anything I forgot ...)

But if SDM is/was written as a rebuttal to people saying "Mechanics Don't Matter"* (which is close to what I think most people mean if they say 'System Doesn't Matter')--and maybe I'm wrong about the genesis of the article or a major factor of it's usage--but this does come from a recent discussion on RPGnet with Ron and Ralph ... then making the distinction would be an important one.

It's true that all the games have different mechanics.

It's also true that a Computer is always telling you what's real (but a human is telling you what's real ... usually ... I've had the cat GM, but the games were always weird).

So, I happen to:

Agree with John--the variance of engine in each game will make a difference.

Agree with Vincent--the way that SDM is usually invoked here, for the computer games I've seen--the GNS mode of play is very similar.

-Marco
* and what people really mean with System Doesn't Matter, I think, is not "I can't tell the difference between systems" (i.e. that there is litteraly no difference) but "I can have fun with any system" or better: "In my experience I've not found a system I couldn't have the same degree of fun with." A lie detector probably wouldn't flicker for either of these (i.e. their statement is self-referential and therefore "true.")

[W. Don]

They are definitely different from tabletop RPGs, but they have a fair amount of art and sophistication to them without simply being the computer telling you a story.

One of the interesting things that strikes me about CRPGs is that the "game" (the story, adventure, program, whatever) is invariably a product of other people. So in a sense, it (a CRPG) is still a human GM telling you a story (or running you through a game), or more likely a group of GM's (the team who made the game) telling you a story. In that way a computer RPG is exactly like a pen and paper RPG, only that the computer is the medium of the game/story.

The medium defines and constrains the ways in which the GM may tell the story, and also provides the illusion that the player is playing by himself. Nevertheless it is still at its core a GM-player relationship, a game between two human parties (not simply an object-player relationship, as in say a wall and a lone person bouncing balls off of it).

( Silly random thought: Maybe CRPGs and RPG theory might eventually lead to some sort of new Turing test: If a real human player cannot tell the difference between a human GM running a game and a computer running a game, then artificial intelligence has been achieved. )

[lumpley]

John,

Getting to choose your character's actions, yes, both tabletop and computer games give you.

In tabletop games, though, the GM or whoever's talking is absolutely required to get your buy-in before what she says is true.  This goes far, far beyond your character's actions; I'm talking about the weather, the actions of NPCs, subtleties of outcome, everything.  Since the game's events happen in your imagination, over which you individually have absolute control, tabletop roleplaying is negotiated.  

A computer has a whole different relationship to the in-game.  The game's events don't happen in your imagination, they happen in the computer's, if you will.  The computer doesn't have to get your buy-in; the computer's word is law and final.  There is no way for you to negotiate.  (I'll read Emily Short's essays as soon as I get the chance, though.  I may be talking out my butt.)

Some gaming styles idealize the GM's word as final, but that doesn't make it so.  The I-Am-God GM will still change the tone of his narration if you scowl, will still make eye contact and use body language to get you to go along with him.  And sometimes one player misunderstands and gets a critical detail out of whack with the rest of the group, so, like everybody, they negotiate.  Computers just can't do that yet.

That's the difference in principle.

-Vincent

[Ian Charvill]

There's a sense in which the imagined events of a crpg are consensual.  You need to imagine that the scenery is actually 3d, that the AI responses can be grouped to individual characters, that the pictures on the screen actually make some sense, rather than being mere side effects of a bunch of data processing.

If the crp messes with this acceptance too much - bad graphics, erratic AI, crashing alot (i.e. interrupting the story without good reason) then the player with withdraw that consent.  They'll stop playing.

It's not that there's no concent - offer and acceptance - it's that the "negotiations" are gross, the range of options are limited.