Are MMORPGs CRPGs?

[Christopher Weeks]

So I've been following the current threads on CRPGs and whether or not they're RPGs and whether or not the employ an SIS.  But I want to know if we're universally talking about single-player experiences.

Particularly, to those of you who distinctly claim that CRPGs are not really RPGs, do you have a different stance on MMORPGs?  Which ones?  Why?

Chris

[Blankshield]

So I've been following the current threads on CRPGs and whether or not they're RPGs and whether or not the employ an SIS.  But I want to know if we're universally talking about single-player experiences.

Particularly, to those of you who distinctly claim that CRPGs are not really RPGs, do you have a different stance on MMORPGs?  Which ones?  Why?

Chris

I am specifically refering to single-player CRPGs.  I'm not stunningly familiar with MMORPGs, although much moreso with their ancestor the MUSH/MUD.  In my experience, those are RPG's, because the computer is basically a tool for maintaining the imagined space and being a channel for System.  Players interact with each other, which is one of my yardsticks (not my only one, but a significant one) for "is it an RPG".

I can't really speak to MMORPGs because I've never played one.

James

[Mike Holmes]

Why is it important? We have terms for both, why can't we just continue to use both terms?

What would it prove if MMORPGs were also classifiable as CRPGs?

If it's the question of whether MMORPGs are RPGs, why not ask that?

In any case, it should be clear from my position that they are RPGs, but that it's important to consider that the subset in question has some differences from other forms of RPGs. Why's this all gotta be so controversial?

In terms of what theory applies to it, like the recent LARP thread, most theory here should be considered Table Top theory, and for other forms it should be considered individually whether or not it transfers over (and how, if so).

In any case, they get discussed here (the recent 9 page thread on one is proof that MMORPGs "count" as RPGs as far as The Forge is concerned), so that's not controversial either. That is, no form of RPG has been declared off limits for discussion from what I've seen.

So, if it's not whether it's appropriate for discussion, or whether or not the theory applies, then what's the concern about definitions?

Sorry to rain on just this thread, but these are starting to get really annoying.

OTOH, if you want to instead talk about what the distinctions are between the forms, that might be an interesting topic (and has been done more than once, I think).

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

What James said. However, some (majority?) of the recent multiplayer games are played locally as a kind of strategy game instead - single players an groups of players taking on metagame goals that coincide only by virtue of game design with some quesy "I gotta get rich because I gotta" character nature. Not really different from MUDs, that.

Then again, tabletop games are used for that, too. It's just much harder with tabletop, as you cannot ignore your fellow players and their commitment to the imaginary world. So I'd say that massive multiplayer games can be used for roleplaying pretty easily. They give pretty much System and other stuff, but leave an open field as far as social priorities go. Plenty of room for both creation of imagined space (guilds, for example) and role immersion.

[Christopher Weeks]

Mike, I'm trying to gather a comprehensive set of opinions.  It's a useful thought tool.  Since I'm at one extreme (I am clearly in the minority by thinking that solo CRPGs employ SIS), I'd like to more fully grok the others.  You should not let these threads annoy you.

Chris

[Merten]

Then again, tabletop games are used for that, too. It's just much harder with tabletop, as you cannot ignore your fellow players and their commitment to the imaginary world. So I'd say that massive multiplayer games can be used for roleplaying pretty easily. They give pretty much System and other stuff, but leave an open field as far as social priorities go. Plenty of room for both creation of imagined space (guilds, for example) and role immersion.

I pretty much agree; MMORPG's give tools (very limited, but still) for roleplaying, but don't currently encourage using them, due to game design which is more or less directed toward small group tactics and simple first person hack & slash. The greatest gap comes with lack of communication; characters able to wave to other characters do not really enable roleplaying and the text-based communication is almost as limited. Suprisingly it's the most lacking part - typing has been made relatively hard, as the input screens are rather small, usually about ten rows in length and not wide. One cannot comfortably write but just few lines (which is probably one of the main reasons for the, ahem, sad state of the language used in MMORPG's). Thus, the games are more like multiplayer versions of "classic" CRPG's.

This was rather suprising (and not in positive way) for me, as I had several years of MUSH/MUX-experience before trying out the MMORPG's. The MUSH/MUX-games have actually enabled a rather good roleplaying enviroment, as the experience is limited to text and imagination only. That, and the fact they automate the use of rules systems quite well.

I don't have too much experience with MUD's, but I'm under the impression that most of them are sort of ancestors of the current MMORPG's, not encouraging communication and roleplaying, but focusing on the aspects mentioned before.

As a sidenote, the power of graphics in MMORPG's should not be underestimated, though - a beautifylly crafted sunset, for example, might create a relatively strong feeling of "being there". Still, I don't think it's enough to provide roleplaying experience.

[Vaxalon]

There was a beta for a MMORPG in the world of MYST that promised to be something much more than MMORPGs are... because there was nothing to fight.

They made a LOT of avatar animations to allow for things like waving, laughing, etc, and gave a lot more screen space to text.  There was even talk of allowing voice chat.

Unfortunately, they were a bit overextended, and the whole system failed.

RPG's in the classic sense WILL exist in the future, in this kind of environment... the technology needs to advance just a little tiny bit first.

[Andrew Morris]

Particularly, to those of you who distinctly claim that CRPGs are not really RPGs, do you have a different stance on MMORPGs?  Which ones?  Why?

I'm in that group, and, yes, I do have a different stance on MMORPGs. When I refer to CRPGs I am referring exclusively to single-player games. Since the core of my reasoning as to why CRPGs are not RPGs is the lack of social interaction, I believe MMORPGs qualify as RPGs. Hope that answers your question. If not, let me know.

[Gamskee]

I think that MMORPGs can be role playing games, but generally are so rigid that ones imagination is limited to communication through text and deciding what virtual beasty you want to hit.

I think City of Heroes made some headway in this area due to the options of character creation not in stats, but appearance. By being able to deeply customize your character's appearance, one can add that to the shared imagined space. You also can throw an origin onto your character, so your background is viewable with a click of a button.

Still, you run through a plot that takes neither of these things into account and bash some baddies with friends. The City of Villains expansion will allow some player versus player interaction and plot, taking it a step closer to the shared imagination space of a table top game.

I currently think that they aren't roleplaying games so much as a medium where roleplaying may take place.

[Lxndr]

I agree with Gamskee.  They're not roleplaying games in and of themselves, but they are a place and a venue for roleplaying, usually roleplaying of a very freeform type.

[Andrew Morris]

Gamskee and Lxndr, I might not be understanding your point, but couldn't the same be said of any RPG?

[herrmess]

My take on most games marketed as MMORPGs is similar to my opinion on those marketed as CRPGs. Actually, while reading through the CRPG discussion I constantly kept in mind the multiplayer rather than the single-player model. People referring to FPS actually managed to surprise me; I never even paused to considered FPS a roleplaying game. It probably has something to do with a recent debate I had with a friend of mine on the topic of playing NWN.

This, more than anything else, made me aware of the fact that the "social interaction" aspect is a crucial aspect of RPGs for me. And furthermore, that SIS should be somehow "shared" with real people, in real time, in a direct two-way interaction. Which MMORPGs give you (or at least provide you with the semblance of).

But it turned out it's not the only element I believe to be necessary for an RPG, as it is difficult for me to see most MMORPGs as RPGs. Why? Because the other necessary part of the SIS is that it should be imagined (as contrary to "imaginary"). Modern multiplayer games are detailed and choke-full with high-res graphics and sound effects, and there is nothing in the game that's not visually shown (and vice versa). There is no imagined content, nothing to visualize. This makes me, the player, an instrument of perception, not imagination. SIS turns into SPS. This point was discussed before, so I won't dwell on it.

Surprisingly enough, this makes one type of MMOGs a good candidate for RPGdom: the MU* (MUD, MUSH etc). The acronym for MUSH is "Multi User Shared Hallucination". In a MU*, a written medium, you have to use your imagination. In a MUSH, you can add to the shared experience (by creating objects, creatures, places) with a richness of possibilities, limited only by, well, your imagination. So, a MUSH is closer to realize a tabletop-like SIS than any other non-tabletop medium.

The only thing that's inherently missing from this setup is the "game" factor, or the drive to kill things and take their stuff. I have a strong feeling that this content is what defines an RPG these days. Looks to me like the CPRG designers said "this is what RP is all about, a bunch of stats with a mission to save the world when the stats max out which happens by hacking at moving pieces of the scenery... this should be easy to program." So by the popular content definition, a MUSH actually fails to deliver the CRPG exprience. It can be used for this purpose (other MUDs -- or "Multi User Dungeons" -- often are) but inherently it isn't, since the users are there to "share a hallucination," as it were.

MarK.

[Andrew Morris]

Modern multiplayer games are detailed and choke-full with high-res graphics and sound effects, and there is nothing in the game that's not visually shown (and vice versa). There is no imagined content, nothing to visualize. This makes me, the player, an instrument of perception, not imagination.

Thats....uhm....a really good point. Damn! Now I have to reconsider my viewpoint of MMORPGs as RPGs. I've got nothing to refute it at the moment (but it's 4 in the morning and I'm not at my best), so I'll have to think it over. You may well have changed my mind.

[Gamskee]

I agree with Gamskee. They're not roleplaying games in and of themselves, but they are a place and a venue for roleplaying, usually roleplaying of a very freeform type.

Gamskee and Lxndr, I might not be understanding your point, but couldn't the same be said of any RPG?

Okay, lets look at our average MMORPG. You get to make a character using rules like an RPG. Then you get to manipulate what this character does in an imaginary world to some degree. You usually kill monsters and tasks to get levels and experience.

However, most of the interactive features that make this space shared are little more than a chat window, or possibly a headset. This is the only thing that really allows for it to become roleplaying, as the games have very little in the way of non-verbal cues for communication beyond party starting/joining or other ways to talk.

So, this imagined space just happens to have a game that is team oriented with digital miniatures, but nothing about this set up requires roleplaying or making use of the chat features. I can just go wack monsters solo style and ignore any people who wish to team with me. It becomes a single player game at my discretion. The same thing could be done with a first person shooter, rping while playing a game that has little to do with the RP.

On the note of digital miniatures, I don't think graphics destroy imagined space, just supplement a good deal of it.

[JamesSterrett]

Remember, folks, imagination is a precious and fragile resource.  Playing with any sensory aid at all destroys your ability to imagine.  True Role Playing only takes place in sensory deprivation tanks after meditation to remove the urge to use such corrupting tools as dice, minatures, computers, and other people.   ;-)