CRPGs, SIS, and SOlo Play: Is it Role Playing?

[Andrew Morris]

ADGBoss: Your point about breaking the SIS up in time is very good, and comes the closest to changing my point of view on this topic out of any argument so far.

Blankshield: The point about the vital necessity of a back-and-forth saved me from swinging over to ADGBoss's camp.  :-)   I think that the feedback is a key element, and I agree that RPG is an inherently social activity.

Simon_Hibbs: In regard to your point about Tunnels and Trolls having solo play, thus proving that CRPGs must also be considered "real" RPGs -- in a word, no. Instead, I think it just means that solo T&T isn't "real" roleplaying either. (Please note, though, I've never played T&T, so I'm assuming I understand the concept of the "solo play" you mention. If it's something other than one person running through a published adventure, let me know.)

As I stated in the parent thread, I'm a big fan of CRPGs, but I believe they are fundamentaly different than TTRPGs.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
I've snipped off the rest because I don't think it's a disagreement; I'm saying the computer isn't a person, you're saying the computer isn't a person.  The only difference in thought is already captured above: you think I'm roleplaying with the game designers, I think I'm audience for their work.

It's easiest to see if you look at play by post games. They are considered roleplay, right?

To start, the GM submits a post.

Then, the players, with nothing else from him, respond to his contribution with their own contribution.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and go on about what happens when the GM reads it. Was or wasn't that roleplay? I think it is and it doesn't require some other persons follow up to be so. It's a lot more fun if there is follow up, but that's a bonus, not a requirement.

I can only think that traditional play and CRPG different as much as broadband and dial up are...they can feel like different things because one is more powerful than the other. You might feel so pushed down from what your used to you'd swear you've been put into the audience position, but perhaps that's because of the contrast between what you have now and what you have before. Dusk seems like pitch black if you've been staring into a light source.

[simon_hibbs]

Blankshield: The point about the vital necessity of a back-and-forth saved me from swinging over to ADGBoss's camp.  :-)   I think that the feedback is a key element, and I agree that RPG is an inherently social activity.

Fine, so tabletop RPGs are social games, but not all social games are tabeltop RPGs. In fact all the social aspects of tebletop RPGs could be represented in a agme that clearly isn't a roleplaying game. Therefore all you're saying is that tabeltop RPGs are realy Social RPGs, whereas computer RPGs aren't. But they're still RPGs, otherwise we have no way of distinguishing social RPGs and other forms of social games.

Simon_Hibbs: In regard to your point about Tunnels and Trolls having solo play, thus proving that CRPGs must also be considered "real" RPGs -- in a word, no. Instead, I think it just means that solo T&T isn't "real" roleplaying either. (Please note, though, I've never played T&T, so I'm assuming I understand the concept of the "solo play" you mention. If it's something other than one person running through a published adventure, let me know.)

It isn't social roleplaying, but if it's not roelplaying, what is it? How do  distinguish between a programmed solo wargame and a programmed solo roleplaying game book, other that by saying that one is a wargame and the other is a roleplaying game?


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

Ok, I hope I'm not missunderstanding you, but...

In the case of the map, if I am a 250 pound biker with a crowbar, I can say "put sentry positions down or I'm clubbing you to death.".  I can say that to the computer as well, but it *can't* change it's answer.  I suppose, in theory that I could say that to the author, but that would involve a certain amount of stalking.

Sue, but you could do the same in a refereed wargame, or a chess game 'move that pawn back or you lose fingers!". It has nothing to do with whether you're playing a roleplaying game or not.

you think I'm roleplaying with the game designers, I think I'm audience for their work.

But what is the work you are audience for, if not roleplaying? You interact with the game world through the medium of the character, which is the role that you play in the imaginary space. No?

Simon Hibbs

[Blankshield]

Hrm.  I think that we're beginning to get even farther down into not-very-useful disagreements because of fundamental differences in what we're using as our definition of 'role-playing'.  I'll endeavour to clear up my position, but I suspect we must simply agree to disagree.

Ok, I hope I'm not missunderstanding you, but...

In the case of the map, if I am a 250 pound biker with a crowbar, I can say "put sentry positions down or I'm clubbing you to death.". I can say that to the computer as well, but it *can't* change it's answer. I suppose, in theory that I could say that to the author, but that would involve a certain amount of stalking.

Sue, but you could do the same in a refereed wargame, or a chess game 'move that pawn back or you lose fingers!". It has nothing to do with whether you're playing a roleplaying game or not.

Yes, you could.  My example was probably faulty in this case.  What I was intending was to give an example of how social interaction can change the state of a tabletop game which it cannot do in a computer game.  I'm pretty sure I've stated this in a couple places now: I consider "role-playing games" to be fundamentally a social activity.

But what is the work you are audience for, if not roleplaying? You interact with the game world through the medium of the character, which is the role that you play in the imaginary space. No?

Bluntly, from my understanding of roleplaying: no.  I am an audience for an elaborate piece of fiction, which is self-contained.  Off the shelf, it already contains every possible outcome or interaction I can have with it.  I cannot make it do anything it is not already programmed to do.  To reference back to the recurring example: if the game does not already contain at least the potential for bottles in bars, then no amount of me trying to introduce them will work, ever.  I have no input.

----

It's easiest to see if you look at play by post games. They are considered roleplay, right?

To start, the GM submits a post.

Then, the players, with nothing else from him, respond to his contribution with their own contribution.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and go on about what happens when the GM reads it. Was or wasn't that roleplay? I think it is and it doesn't require some other persons follow up to be so. It's a lot more fun if there is follow up, but that's a bonus, not a requirement.

No, not in the way I am using role-playing.  What I would say is that someone has submitted fiction to you, and you have written fan fiction based on their work.  Until you return it to them and they accept it, it is not, IMO, roleplaying.  Once that back-and-forth is there, I would call it role-playing, but not before.  Not until there is a two-way flow of information.

Again, as I mention above, I consider the social aspect of "rpgs" to be axiomatic, so really all we can say at this point is that we're obviously using different defintions of role-playing.

James

[simon_hibbs]

James,

I get your point, but the kind of interactivity you like is found in many kinds of games, including many that don't even have characters in them. Therefore I don't see how roleplaying itself can be defined by that interactivity.

Of course it's possible to distinguish between CRPGs and tabletop RPGs. Of course solo game books are different from tabletop RPGs, but the ways they are different have nothing intrinsicaly to do with characters, or playing roles.

Surely playing the role of a character has something to do with roleplaying?


Simon Hibbs

[Blankshield]

Surely playing the role of a character has something to do with roleplaying?

Yes, absolutely.  But it isn't the only criteria.  Just as social interaction isn't the only criteria, but it is, for my purposes, a necessary one.  You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying all you need is social interaction to be an RPG, and that's patently false.  All I'm saying is that I think that it is necessary.

I am not claiming that in a CRPG you do not take on the role of a character*, I am claiming that in and of itself taking on a role is not sufficient to be a role-playing game.  Otherwise actors around the world would be role-playing.  Storytellers in the oral tradition would be role-playing.  Both of these activities are not what most people consider role-playing games.

Does that help?

James

*Although I'm not convinced that's what you do in an CRPG, but I'm well aware that I'm a distinct minority in that view, and it's not germane to the discussion.

[Callan S.]

No, not in the way I am using role-playing. What I would say is that someone has submitted fiction to you, and you have written fan fiction based on their work. Until you return it to them and they accept it, it is not, IMO, roleplaying. Once that back-and-forth is there, I would call it role-playing, but not before. Not until there is a two-way flow of information.

Again, as I mention above, I consider the social aspect of "rpgs" to be axiomatic, so really all we can say at this point is that we're obviously using different defintions of role-playing.

James

Not really, I think were just not spotting the key points of the same thing.

Let's look at this line: "Until you return it to them and they accept it"

What do you mean by accept? Does that include passive acceptance from the other person? Someone just nodding, instead of saying 'that's great, and how about I add this to it as well?'. Or does acceptance always have to include some return contribution, to be acceptance?

Also, let's look at my example. We see myself offering my contribution to the GM's contribution. He takes me up on this and in return, starts the first post. In return I give him my post. Weve already accepted something from each other.

[Andrew Morris]

Surely playing the role of a character has something to do with roleplaying?

Yes, absolutely. But as Blankshield points out, it's not the only necessary element. Let me toss this around and state it another way, so we can be sure we are at least understanding each other correctly. I view RPGs as a subset of social games, which I consider in turn a subset of games. If I'm understanding your point correctly, you are saying that social role-playing games are a subset of RPGs, which are a subset of games. Let me know if that's not what you mean.

So, by my model, CRPGs are a subset of non-social games, which are a subset of games. In your model, CRPGs are a subset of RPGs, which are a subset of games. (Sorry, I can't think of a different word for subset at the moment.)

Also, since we're discussing terminology, let's be careful not to confuse role-playing with role-playing games. Role-playing happens all over the place.

[Blankshield]

No, not in the way I am using role-playing. What I would say is that someone has submitted fiction to you, and you have written fan fiction based on their work. Until you return it to them and they accept it, it is not, IMO, roleplaying. Once that back-and-forth is there, I would call it role-playing, but not before. Not until there is a two-way flow of information.

Again, as I mention above, I consider the social aspect of "rpgs" to be axiomatic, so really all we can say at this point is that we're obviously using different defintions of role-playing.

Not really, I think were just not spotting the key points of the same thing.

Let's look at this line: "Until you return it to them and they accept it"

What do you mean by accept? Does that include passive acceptance from the other person? Someone just nodding, instead of saying 'that's great, and how about I add this to it as well?'. Or does acceptance always have to include some return contribution, to be acceptance?

Passive acceptance is Ok - that's fairly common in "traditional" tabletop gaming - the GM reads the description, the players nod.  It's still acceptance.  The key thing in your question that tabletop gaming and play by post have that CRPGs do not is "the other person".  There is no other person in a solo module or a CRPG.

Also, let's look at my example. We see myself offering my contribution to the GM's contribution. He takes me up on this and in return, starts the first post. In return I give him my post. Weve already accepted something from each other.

Ok, I'm confused.  In your example, there is no "takes me up on this, and in return[...]"  That would indeed be role-playing.  In your example there are only two steps:

To start, the GM submits a post.

Then, the players, with nothing else from him, respond to his contribution with their own contribution.

If it doesn't go beyond that, it's not two-way communication, it's not role-playing - not by my terms, anyway.

James

[simon_hibbs]

I am not claiming that in a CRPG you do not take on the role of a character*, I am claiming that in and of itself taking on a role is not sufficient to be a role-playing game.  Otherwise actors around the world would be role-playing.  Storytellers in the oral tradition would be role-playing.  Both of these activities are not what most people consider role-playing games.

Does that help

Actors are playing roles, but they're not playing a roleplaying game. Storytellers don't play a role, so that's out on both counts. You're realy not making this very hard.

If solo roleplaying games aren't roleplaying games, what are they? They aren't solo wargames, which do exist. They aren't solo board games. You still haven't addressed this question. In what sense is a solo T&T player not playing a game, or not playing a role, and if they're not doing those things what are they doing? They're not doing it in an extra, special context that you happen to prefer, but we already have terms that make that distinction - tabletop and solo. We might even replace the term tabletop with the term social to make it even more clear.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

f solo roleplaying games aren't roleplaying games, what are they? They aren't solo wargames, which do exist. They aren't solo board games.

Why not?  On another thread I've just posted a link to the Avalon Hill boardgame Outdoor Survival; it would be very easy to choose to identify with the character in a solo game.  Is it therefore an RPG?  Not to my mind, its still a boardgame.  I thought Mike Homes point on infinite inputs was excellent in this regard (other thread tho).

[simon_hibbs]

f solo roleplaying games aren't roleplaying games, what are they? They aren't solo wargames, which do exist. They aren't solo board games.

Why not?  On another thread I've just posted a link to the Avalon Hill boardgame Outdoor Survival; it would be very easy to choose to identify with the character in a solo game.  Is it therefore an RPG?  Not to my mind, its still a boardgame.  I thought Mike Homes point on infinite inputs was excellent in this regard (other thread tho).

Because they don't require a board and don't necesserily include war, military units or even combat.

Outdoor Survival probably isn't a roleplaying game because the player's probably don't primarily affect change in the imaginary space through the medium of the character they play. However it may be a roleplaying board game, since I believe such are possible.


Simon Hibbs

[Eero Tuovinen]

If solo roleplaying games aren't roleplaying games, what are they? They aren't solo wargames, which do exist. They aren't solo board games. You still haven't addressed this question. In what sense is a solo T&T player not playing a game, or not playing a role, and if they're not doing those things what are they doing? They're not doing it in an extra, special context that you happen to prefer, but we already have terms that make that distinction - tabletop and solo. We might even replace the term tabletop with the term social to make it even more clear.

THAT is the point of your debate, is it not? The word can be used to denote anything at all, so there's really no point at all in trying to find a definition analytically. If one of you prefers to include a very different kind of game and another wants to exclude it, why bother fighting over it?

I've personally found that the only reason worth going at it in these discussions is cultural politics. Thinking is done via language, and thus those who control language control thinking. By defining roleplaying in a certain way, people try to defend or forward their own understanding of what's relevant.

All debates over definitions of words are really about this. For example, nobody contested the right of storytelling games to be called roleplaying games before really functional and borderline popular examples like Once Upon a Time and Universalis appeared. Since then it's been a perennial topic - is roleplaying defined by the imaginary space or by taking roles? I've not met anyone who actively liked storytelling games and simultaneously granted them the prestigious (relative to an unknown term) name of roleplaying - all the people in these discussions are furthering their own cultural agenda, whether it's about promoting storytelling games as valid form or trying to pretend that they don't exist.

Note that the current discussion surfaced because of cultural conflict - some would that Forge emphasis CRPGs more, some would accept them, and some would actively oppose them. This is the real point of the debate, should Forge include CRPGs. The question of whether the term "roleplaying" includes these games is just a debating tactic.

Note that I don't doubt that at least some of you aren't really in this for the above reason, but rather because of pure academic interest. Obviously, when the historical precedent (which is of interest only to scholars and conservatives) is stripped away, the only question left is, what is the most efficient and clear way of referencing these things. We might well discuss this, but the actual debate won't be solved by theory - it is only solved by practice, which will include or exclude CRPGs.

In my own opinion, by the way, CRPGs are not roleplaying games, mainly because I contend that they are best played by not immersing in the role. This is how they are designed, too. Whether somebody is able to roleplay through such an instrument as a CRPG is is a moot point; CRPG lends itself much better for exclusive pawn stance, that is, strategy playing. I've yet to play one CRPG for which this weren't true - they might include non-interactive aesthetic content like CGI movies, but the actual play content is clearly strategic and tactic. Battles, resource planning, leveling up, puzzles - these are not the essence of roleplaying, whether you go by the imaginary space or the immersive interpretation of the word. The same holds true with T&T solo adventures, by the way. On the other hand, "choose your own adventure" books would be on the other side of the line by the immersive definition, as the point in them is to explore your own preferences in story creation - that is, to play the role of the protagonist.

As to which definition is better, the social or the immersive... I'd be willing to accept either if there were a word that'd describe all permutations of these games. As long as there is no such word, I suggest using roleplaying game for them all. The word has prestige, and it's not right to marginalize games just because they don't comform with one definition or other.

[simon_hibbs]

In my own opinion, by the way, CRPGs are not roleplaying games, mainly because I contend that they are best played by not immersing in the role.

But what about when they are played by immersing in the role?

Battles, resource planning, leveling up, puzzles - these are not the essence of roleplaying, whether you go by the imaginary space or the immersive interpretation of the word.

It seem to me the only different between what you think of as roleplaying, and these games is what the characters actualy do in the imaginary space. Not how the players controll the characters, not the rules of the game itself, and not the nature of the imaginary space, only what the characters actualy do in it. Surely that's just a matter of play style preference, not the nature of the game?


Simon Hibbs