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

[contracycle]

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

Is that even possible?  All of my experiences with CRPG's have been so strongly drawn in pawn stance that I find strong identification hard, let alone immersion.  I also find it terribly difficult to identify with a character who cannot speak, and has nobody to speak to.

I agree with above remakrs that the choose your own adventure books facilitated a rather higher level of identification and immersion than most CRPG's; becuase of the nature of the 'verbal' creation of thre SIS and the necessity for personally imagining the environment.  I don't need to do that CRPG's: I just look.

[simon_hibbs]

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

Is that even possible?  All of my experiences with CRPG's have been so strongly drawn in pawn stance that I find strong identification hard, let alone immersion.  I also find it terribly difficult to identify with a character who cannot speak, and has nobody to speak to.

In first person CRPGs immersion can be quite 'deep', as it is in first person shooters. Morrowind is an example. Text adventure games can be just as immersing as any novel. I'd agree that third person perspective games are much less immersing, but they're only one sub-type of the form.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

Fair point, I have certainly been sufficiently immersed in a movie-like way to startle when surprised; this has happened in both FPS's and some third persons, Resident Evil, uh, leaps to both mind and throat.

As it happens the one thing that really, really, really bugs me in FPS's is that you usually can't see your own body.  It makes me uncomfortable not being able to see my feet.  But that said it takes quite a lot of immersion to be bothered by it.

But, I wonder... in a movie RPG I think the audience may be said to be immersed in the situation, perhaps.  They may or may not be idenitifying with a character, this I would think is especially true of works with a big cast and radical scene changes, perhaps like 24.  The audience I think would be better said to favour or support a character rather be immersed in a character.

Its IMO harder in the story-built FPS single player games, because sooner or later Plot Device charges through the door with a gun and shoves a script in your mouth.  Far Cry, with all the vegatation and wildlife and incidental components of its virtual space is really good for a vigorous transposition of your self perception into that space, but you still HAVE to be that character and you still get your own dialogue shown to you.

Then there are the OTHER CRPG games, the huge Elite-like open universes in which you just truck around doing your thing, buying and selling and blowing up pirates, usually.  In these you can choose your own name and "be" who you want, but either there's nobody to talk to or all the exchanges are menu choices.  None of it matters.  The online version of FPS games is simialr, you can bring anything youn like to the party but nobody cares much, certainly the game can't.

In face to face RPG, there's much more opportunity to engage with the  specific character, who you are, what you do and what you did, I think.  To undertake an exploration of the world from a different perspective.

[Eero Tuovinen]

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?

Yeah, and chess is a roleplaying game as well. Of course you can immerse in all kinds of things, but certainly that does not a roleplaying game make. The game becomes a roleplaying game by the immersive definition when it supports immersion somehow.

Then again, as far as the actual act goes, I'd think that if somebody does immerse himself in a CRPG, then it's a roleplaying game (using the immersive definition) for him. I don't think that that has any relevance for the Forge, though - such an immersionist has chosen to cast off any rules or procedures that actually help roleplaying, so there's not much that a site of roleplaying design and publication can offer. Any immersive CPRG players can start proving me wrong very simply - just for starters, write an actual play report to the appropriate forum. Include anything you deem relevant, let's see if there's roleplaying in there.

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?

Again, only if you insist in roleplaying in an unlikely and difficult manner. Certainly bashing random monsters and taking their stuff can be roleplaying (although in tabletop the roleplaying occurs because of social reasons in this kind of game), I just find it ridiculous to imagine that someone would bother. I'd believe CRPGs as roleplaying much easier if the game supplied tools of immersion or exploration - the two main features of real roleplaying games.

As far as Morrowind or Resident Evil goes, both are IMO primarily multimedia experiences. They are so much easier to use as interactive books (or movies, whatever) that I have to conclude that anybody who claims to primarily roleplay with them has to be a little dull. Imagine, taking on the accountrements of the protagonist, accepting all his decisions in the prescripted plot, manipulating your way through the particular limitations of the game... I couldn't do all that and imagine one second being the guy. To the contrary, extreme pawn stance it is for me. The main point of Morrowind for me was to verify that the world construction didn't offer anything new, after which I just wandered min-maxing in the landscape. The character never developed any personality; I just made the choices that gave maximal access to guilds.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I wouldn't mind calling a game that faciliates immersion a roleplaying game. The "choose your own adventure" books were that, and there's no reason why that couldn't be done on a computer. Some old text adventures would qualify as well. So if you want to use roleplaying to mean "roleplaying a character", go ahead and call these kinds of games roleplaying. There's not a single game made after year -92 (apart from the text adventure scene) which qualifies, though, so it's not practically very relevant. The games called roleplaying today in the computer world just simply are not that, and I pity the fools who try to roleplay through them. I personally hate most of the jerks starring in these games; it's a wonder how unsymphatetic lead characters computer (and especially console) games can have.

[Blankshield]

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

Ok, we're right back where we were a few posts back.

Bluntly, we aren't using the same basis to define role-playing games.  Apples and oranges.

I don't know what solo role-playing games are.  Not labeled properly, by my lights.  I'd be inclined to call it solitaire, but then, I'd be inclined to apply that label to solo boardgames and solo wargames as well.

I'm not sure that we can move forward at this point.  I keep stating that I think RPG's require (among other things) a social context.  You keep saying "but X is an RPG, and it doesn't have a social context"  All I can say to that is I don't think X is an RPG.  

James

(and as an aside, since it really isn't germane to the point: if you don't think storytellers in the oral tradition take on roles, you've never heard a good storyteller.)

[Callan S.]

I'd really like to have some things established or atleast clearly shot down (then I can leave the thread as it isn't one for me).

You don't define roleplay by the medium. Roleplay games encourage roleplay. If they are the medium you use to define roleplay, it's circular logic.

To put it simply, I can roleplay in chess along with the other player. It doesn't matter a jot if the game doesn't encourage roleplay, we can still roleplay during this activity.

You can ask 'is game X a roleplay game, does it encourage roleplay?'

And you can ask 'am I roleplaying right now, as I do this activity?'

But one wont answer the other.

It doesn't matter if a CRPG is appaling at supporting immersion, the medium itself doesn't mean you can't roleplay.

And now just my post, rather than trying to establish anything:
Again, It doesn't mean you can't roleplay with another person through this CRPG. The question is, when there isn't another person present, not even through a tenous link (like IRC or play by post), am I roleplaying, as I do this activity?

And I think the answer revolves around what presence is, what amount is needed, what amount is there even though at first glance it appears a complete absence.

[Callan S.]

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.

There is no 'whole' person there. But what do you need from someone who is present? Especially if that presence is through IRC or play by post. What is the special quality needed? Let's nail it down, if we can.

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:

Okay, my mistake, I wrote it too shortly. What I mean is that the GM, in offering his game, he has offered a contribution 'My game situation is this...blah blah blah'. I have then, in responce, offered my contribution, my character to it 'My character is blah blah blah'.

He goes on to create a post and so do I. Both contain bits of each others contribution. To do so we MUST have accepted each other.

I like to think of it as two parralel lines, one the GM (or even player) and the other a player. Occasionally they bend toward each other, bump and bend back, each now carrying something from the bump. What I'm describing is a single 'bump'. Tabletop gaming probably consists of hundreds of 'bumps', but that doesn't nessersarily make it different (just richer).

Perhaps I'll use a sex analogy. Imagine having sex with a woman who is really quite active/responsive in return. That might be considered trad table top play.

Now imagine having sex with a woman who isn't responsive. She said a definite "YES" at the start, but now lays out straight, not really doing anything but be present. I think the term is "cold fish".

But your having sex in both, clearly, right?

[Blankshield]

Perhaps I'll use a sex analogy. Imagine having sex with a woman who is really quite active/responsive in return. That might be considered trad table top play.

Now imagine having sex with a woman who isn't responsive. She said a definite "YES" at the start, but now lays out straight, not really doing anything but be present. I think the term is "cold fish".

But your having sex in both, clearly, right?

Yes, absolutely.  Interesting that we both thought of sex as an analogy; If this thread kept going I was intended to post with it as well.

What I was going to suggest is that I view the difference between tabletop (and PbP and other roleplaying games that involve multiple people actively contributing over time) very strongly as like unto the difference between sex and masturbation.

Mechanically, they are very similar, and they are "about" mostly the same things, but ultimately, one is something that involves other people, the other you do by yourself.

I also see what is a very definate split in how we view things.  You are considering solo gaming to be the 'cold fish' of your analogy, yes?  The game designer contributes strongly once, and is passive thereafter?
I would consider solo gaming to be the masturbation of my analogy: it's a lot like sex, and you may well (or may not) be imagining another person, but when it comes right down to it, you're the only one in the room.

--
Regardless, I think I've pretty clearly expressed several times now, that as far as I'm concerned role-playing games have as one of several necessary aspects, ongoing interactions between multiple people.  I do not consider a one-shot submission without feedback (as in the designer of a CRPG or publisher of a solo module) to qualify as an ongoing interaction between people.  Unless I see something compelling from other points of view that hasn't already been said several times over, I think I'm about done with this dead horse.
James

[Callan S.]

I also see what is a very definate split in how we view things. You are considering solo gaming to be the 'cold fish' of your analogy, yes? The game designer contributes strongly once, and is passive thereafter?

Dead on! Yes!

I would consider solo gaming to be the masturbation of my analogy: it's a lot like sex, and you may well (or may not) be imagining another person, but when it comes right down to it, you're the only one in the room.

Damn.

I think I'm prepared to think that presence/acceptance doesn't have to be always in the flesh. It's just that in the flesh is far more robust. One can be present in many places without actually being there, in a way. Yeah, I'm getting overly complicated. But I do think it all has a practical upshot in helping to identify what you actually need from someone who is physically present, by looking at the CRPG extreme.

Unless I see something compelling from other points of view that hasn't already been said several times over, I think I'm about done with this dead horse.

I just wanted to be sure you got the angle I was coming at. I mean, there's dissagreement and there's disagreement because the other guy didn't get it. Why express anything if one is content with the latter (though Ron might see me as just another 'me too' poster, again)? Anyway I see I got it across to you (disagreed with, but understood) and thus probably to any other reader. Sorry about it feeling like a dead horse, I was enjoying refining my idea with you so as to express it, but my boring writing style strikes again. I'll wrap up myself with this...

To any other reader: I think its a good idea to think about both requirements put forth by me and James. I think a good acid test for any 'this is roleplay' requirement you might think of is would it make a IRC or play by post game, not roleplay. Such play mediums strip away much of the traditional table top elements, which is really handy for helping us identify some of the core elements of roleplay and what you need, rather than just like/want.

[simon_hibbs]

Bluntly, we aren't using the same basis to define role-playing games.  Apples and oranges.

True of course, but your definition causes a host of unnecessery terminological problems, which you just aren't addressing.

I don't know what solo role-playing games are.  Not labeled properly, by my lights.  I'd be inclined to call it solitaire, but then, I'd be inclined to apply that label to solo boardgames and solo wargames as well.

Suppose I add the 'social' requirement to board games and wargames, I can do so with just as much rationale as you add it to roleplaying games. HWere does that leave us? In a terminological black hole, it seems to me.

I'm not sure that we can move forward at this point.  I keep stating that I think RPG's require (among other things) a social context.  You keep saying "but X is an RPG, and it doesn't have a social context"  All I can say to that is I don't think X is an RPG.

But we do agree that X is an RPG. T&T is clearly an RPG, as is D&D and many other games. It's ony when these games are played in a  certain mode, a mode that is perfectly consistent with the basics of the rules of the games, that we disagree.

Is solo Advanced Squad leader still a wargame? is solo Monopoly (supposing I produced rules for such) still a board game? Yes, of course. in their normal mode of play, are these games social games? Yes, they ar4e. You see, the category of social game isn't restricted to roleplaying games, they have a social dimension in just the same way. So marrying the term roleplayign game and the term social together in a special way clarifies nothing, and causes considerable problems.


Simon Hibbs


[quot](and as an aside, since it really isn't germane to the point: if you don't think storytellers in the oral tradition take on roles, you've never heard a good storyteller.)[/quote]

Sure, but it's not an intrinsic requirement - part of the definition of storytelling. Taking on a role is an optional mode in which some storytellers oeprate, just as playing socialy is one mode in which many roleplaying games can be played. The analogy is almost perfect, thank you.

[Andrew Morris]

Is solo Advanced Squad leader still a wargame? is solo Monopoly (supposing I produced rules for such) still a board game? Yes, of course. in their normal mode of play, are these games social games? Yes, they ar4e. You see, the category of social game isn't restricted to roleplaying games, they have a social dimension in just the same way.

I don't think I agree with this argument, Simon. If I toss a football around without anyone else, am I playing football, or even playing a sport? If I go and practice my baseball swing, am I playing baseball, or a sport? I think not, but if anyone disagrees, let me know. Likewise, if you create rules for solo play with a Monopoly board, you're still not playing Monopoly unless you have someone to play with. I would say you're not even playing a board game, at that point, you're just engaging in an activity that uses the equipment of Monopoly. I don't know anything about Advanced Squad Leader, so I can't comment on that. Now, I'm sure there are other activities that would be called the same whether performed socially or by oneself, but I went with sports as an analogy because, like RPGs, they are recreational and social by their nature (according to my definition of RPGs, of course -- as shown by these recent threads, not everyone agrees with that).

So marrying the term roleplayign game and the term social together in a special way clarifies nothing, and causes considerable problems.

I don't think it does, any more than calling football or baseball "competitive sports" as opposed to simply "sports" causes any problems. Saying what something is leads to clarity, not confusion.

[Blankshield]

Noon: Yup, I think we're good.  We were talking past each other for a bit there, but I think we've got it now.  Just for clarity, you're not the dead horse; the whole topic is the dead horse.  Nothing new is being said, and we've been mostly repeating ourselves for a page or so now.

I'm not sure that we can move forward at this point.  I keep stating that I think RPG's require (among other things) a social context.  You keep saying "but X is an RPG, and it doesn't have a social context"  All I can say to that is I don't think X is an RPG.

But we do agree that X is an RPG. T&T is clearly an RPG, as is D&D and many other games. It's ony when these games are played in a  certain mode, a mode that is perfectly consistent with the basics of the rules of the games, that we disagree.

Nope, we don't.  You are substituting T&T for X, which is, in my view not "T&T solo".  They are different things.  One's an RPG, one's using an RPG to play solitaire.  

Simon, I'm sorry, but we just flat out do not agree on what an RPG is.  You're welcome to say I'm wrong, but unless you offer something pretty compelling, I'm not really likely to change my mind at this point.  

James
(edited once to fix formatting mistakes)

[simon_hibbs]

I don't think I agree with this argument, Simon. If I toss a football around without anyone else, am I playing football, or even playing a sport? If I go and practice my baseball swing, am I playing baseball, or a sport?

Golf, bowling, even tables tennis played against a wall are all recognisably the same game when played solo. Sure, not all games can be translated to solo play. That's not my point. Some games can though, and theyr'e still recognisably the same game. D&D played solo is still recognisably D&D, just as golf played solo is still recognisably golf.

I think not, but if anyone disagrees, let me know. Likewise, if you create rules for solo play with a Monopoly board, you're still not playing Monopoly unless you have someone to play with. I would say you're not even playing a board game, at that point, you're just engaging in an activity that uses the equipment of Monopoly.

Like the board, on which your'e playing a game. What I in my naivety would call a board game.

I don't know anything about Advanced Squad Leader, so I can't comment on that.

It's a wargame, possibly the most popular 'serious' wargame ever, for which there are a number of solo kits so you can play it on your own. The people buying those kits and playing ASL think they're still playing a wargame, and in fact still playing ASL. I agree with them.

So marrying the term roleplayign game and the term social together in a special way clarifies nothing, and causes considerable problems.

I don't think it does, any more than calling football or baseball "competitive sports" as opposed to simply "sports" causes any problems. Saying what something is leads to clarity, not confusion.

I think you missunderstand, I'm arguing against reserving the term 'roleplaying game' exclusively to mean tabletop or 'social' roleplaying games. I agree that the extra terminology adds clarity.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think it's time to call this one off for a while. I've read several posts that are all about "You don't understand," and that always means to me, "Dammit, I'm not being heard," and it never goes anywhere good.

So, rather than actually close this thread, I'll say this: review your own posts and decide whether they actually do say what you wanted them to say. Never mind whether the other guy(s) understood them.

If your outlook is indeed preserved here, then that's your cue to stop posting. Disengage from making anyone specific understand or agree, and just concentrate on whether your outlook is documented.

This is a moderator post, in case that's not clear.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Morris]

I think you missunderstand, I'm arguing against reserving the term 'roleplaying game' exclusively to mean tabletop or 'social' roleplaying games. I agree that the extra terminology adds clarity.

You're right. I did misunderstand your point. And I agree with you that extra terminology can add clarity.

So, after all this debate on this topic and all the related ones that have come about recently, how do we go about coming up with a Forge-standard definition of "role-playing game?" Is that even the next step, or a desirable outcome of these discussions? It seems to me that it's almost required in order to address the original topic of this thread.