Walt Frietag: the LP in Solo CRPGs?

[contracycle]

Gareth: Your save vs. poison example fails, because it requires the assent of the group to become true. I could demonstrate this to you conclusively in 45 seconds of face-to-face play; here's how the conversation goes:

No.  It could be a card on a deck.  It could be an entry on a table.

It could be a computer-generated sprite.

Face to face is not the only way.  

The rules can't make anything happen in the fiction of the game except by the players' assent.

No, that depends on the rules in question, it is not impossible in principle.

[joshua neff]

The rules can't make anything happen in the fiction of the game except by the players' assent.

No, that depends on the rules in question, it is not impossible in principle.

Gareth, can you give us an example of actual play in which the rules forced a group of people to play one way, even if everyone playing the game wanted to play a different way? How in the world did the written word trump actual humans making actual decisions about how to play?

[Lance D. Allen]

No, it doesn't depend on the rules in question. It never depends on the rules in question. It depends on what the people sitting around the table want. If the rules, be it by a die roll, or a card draw, or any other method imaginable create a result that the players find unpalatable, the players simply do not accept it and it does not happen.

The game rules are a subset of System, which also includes Social Contract. System is what determines, on a per group basis, how credibility is assigned.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the rules say that the GM cannot say "no". It's "say yes or roll the dice". In my group, typically Lx can say "no" and we as players will either accept the situation or try to negotiate. (Not because we're against the rules... Even as progressive, modern gamers, we still have traditional tendencies..) The System, specifically the Social Contract portion, overrides the rules in such a case, and literally every case.

The rules are granted credibility by the System, not vice versa. By default, you assign a good amount of credibility to anything that happens in the SiS that is supported by dice, numbers or rules in the game; If you didn't, there wouldn't be any point in playing the game. But if the group as a whole doesn't like a rules-backed contribution to the SiS then they change it by whatever means has been decided in their Social Contract. That may be appealing to the GM. It may be fudging a die roll. It may be using a rules-mandated "karma point". It may be a vote. Whatever.

The main point of the posts in this thread has been to discuss whether or not the old-form LP applies to CRPGs. However, given that CRPGs do not possess a System as defined by the LP (having only the "rules" portion of that definition, without the SiS or the Social Contract, and/or any other portions of System I may be missing), it cannot be applied. Perhaps the CLP applies; I don't know. I'd have to re-read it and think it over, but at first read, I didn't see any particular difference in meaning.

[Ben Lehman]

Those interested in the CLP versus the LP might want to take a look at this old thread, where we talk about a CLP-like "power limitation" as opposed to a LP-like "credibility granting":

Check the dates.  It's been a while.  Opinions change.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6359&highlight=">Power Distribution in Games

yrs--
--Ben

[Valamir]

Computers have no imagination. Until someone invents true AI a computer will NEVER be able to output something that the programmer didn't allow for in the software.

This is not true, and has not been for some time. We have quite a batch of Artificial Life programmes that produce complex, emergent behaviour out of simple rule-sets. Further...

Emergent behavior is not imagination.

f there's a bar with a bottle that has been graphically rendered to appear full, the computer will never allow you to manipulate it in any way that its not programmed to allow.

Not for long. The HAVOK physics engine used in HL2 looks set to usher in a new era; the next generation of mainboards are likely to carry Physics Processing Units. At the moment, machines can only handle about a hundred physics-enabled objected, but with a PPU they will build houses out of individual bricks. And thus, you most certainly be able to use a bottle as a molotov.

Nope.  Only if:  a) The programmer defined the contents of the bottle as being seperate from the bottle.  b) The programmer defined the bottle as breakable.  c) The programmer provided the contents with liquid properties such that it could splash and seperate.  d) The programmer set a flag that the contents were "flammable" and e) The programmer defined the properties for what "flammable" means including how to turn on the "on fire" flag and call the appropriate graphics and all of the related fire effects such as damage and spreading and eventually burning out.

The new engines don't do anything different except allow programmers to define ALOT more features and states than they were able to before.  This will certain increase the immersive experience by giving the illusion that the possibilities are unlimited.  But it still relies 100% on those features and states being programmed in.  

Players can certainly come up with interesting effects by combining different features in a way the programmer didn't expect (happens all the time which is why MMORPGs typically go through a cycle of nerfing after a new release).  But the features still had to be programmed as well as the ways in which the features can interact.

--

The notional dichotomy between comuters and players is an illusion IMO. Almost hubris, depending on your philosophical stance. After all, what are YOU, the player? You too are, IMO, an emergent phenomenon from a complex rule set executing in real time in a grey-jelly matrix. The distinction between computers and people is purely quantitative, not qualitative, IMO.

Only if you're an atheist.  Thankfully I know I'm much more than an organic computer.

[Wysardry]

Nope.  Only if:  a) The programmer defined the contents of the bottle as being seperate from the bottle.  b) The programmer defined the bottle as breakable.  c) The programmer provided the contents with liquid properties such that it could splash and seperate.  d) The programmer set a flag that the contents were "flammable" and e) The programmer defined the properties for what "flammable" means including how to turn on the "on fire" flag and call the appropriate graphics and all of the related fire effects such as damage and spreading and eventually burning out.

How does that differ from a human GM who has not personally made a molotov cocktail? He/she would need to refer to his/her own internal database (memory) to check for information gained indirectly from watching tv, reading books, conversations with other people, the system rules etc.

Even if you believe that humans were originally created by a higher intelligence, you should still be able to accept that all subsequent humans were born with inbuilt instincts and basic cognitive skills but no knowledge or experience.

[Callan S.]

Or in other words, having a computer tell you your character's been killed is not really any different than having four other players around the table tell you your character's been killed. There may be recourse available in the latter case that aren't available in the former (pleading, or expending a fate point to force a change, come to mind), and vice versa (restoring from a saved game, or using a bonus life, come to mind), but if such measures fail and you're dissatisfied with the proposition at hand to the point you cannot accept it, your only guaranteed recourse is the same in both cases: withdraw your consent to admit those constraints upon your imagining. That is to say, walk away from the table or keyboard.

That's exactly what I meant to get across! Cool! (Phrased better as well...damn!)

Can I beg a further moment of observation. What we have here is communication between the design team and the player. But the player can't communicate back. So you don't get a creative back and forth where each party adds to the others parties contribution. The design team sends out its contribution and you eithe accept it or walk away from the keyboard. You suggest counter-LP, but I'd suggest describing it as something like "One way lumpley". The player can never contribute back to the design team, and even his walking away doesn't effect that design team in any creative way. But his granting/not granting cred is still very much involved. So it's all one way. Thoughts?

[Callan S.]

Computers have no imagination.  Until someone invents true AI a computer will NEVER be able to output something that the programmer didn't allow for in the software.

The same goes for vibrations in the air, no imagination at all. They're just the medium I communicate with others while playing table top.

Lets not focus on the medium. It doesn't tell you anything about who's deciding what. The main reason why computer games are different isn't anything to do with hardware or software. As you say, they decide nothing.

The difference is that the design team will send me their creative contribution via the medium of software (rather than by the medium of vibrating air while playing table top). They'll send this contribution to me, but they wont come around to my house and listen to my return contribution. I either accept their one and only contribution (regardless of whether that's one sentence or megs of material) or I don't.

It's very one way. If that's what you meant to say, cool. But you'd never prove it by pointing to the medium.

[Wysardry]

Can I beg a further moment of observation. What we have here is communication between the design team and the player. But the player can't communicate back. So you don't get a creative back and forth where each party adds to the others parties contribution. The design team sends out its contribution and you eithe accept it or walk away from the keyboard. You suggest counter-LP, but I'd suggest describing it as something like "One way lumpley". The player can never contribute back to the design team, and even his walking away doesn't effect that design team in any creative way. But his granting/not granting cred is still very much involved. So it's all one way. Thoughts?

Unless the designers of a PnP game are sitting at the table with the players you can't usually communicate with them.

What you can usually do is communicate with the GM, and that can be done in limited ways with a computer GM. This communication is not necessarily one way, as even rudimentary AI can react to the actions of the player and adjust gameplay accordingingly. Most CRPGs also include an options menu where you can adjust various aspects of the game, and some even include a game editor (so you can adjust the design of the game too).

What makes it less obvious is the fact that the communication is not vocal.

[James Holloway]

Unless the designers of a PnP game are sitting at the table with the players you can't usually communicate with them.

Yes, but the "designer" of an RPG and the "designer" of a computer game do very different things, because computer games and RPGs are very different things. The experience of contribution to the SIS by the players is absent in computer games that I know of.

[John Kim]

Unless the designers of a PnP game are sitting at the table with the players you can't usually communicate with them.

Yes, but the "designer" of an RPG and the "designer" of a computer game do very different things, because computer games and RPGs are very different things. The experience of contribution to the SIS by the players is absent in computer games that I know of.

If I take the D&D rulebooks and a D&D adventure module, is that really so different than creating a computer game which lets me go through an adaptation of that module to the computer medium?  Indeed, I believe there are several computer games which have nearly exact adaptations of PnP RPG rules.  In both games, I am contributing to the story/imaginary space by inputing the actions of my character.

[James Holloway]

If I take the D&D rulebooks and a D&D adventure module, is that really so different than creating a computer game which lets me go through an adaptation of that module to the computer medium?  Indeed, I believe there are several computer games which have nearly exact adaptations of PnP RPG rules.  In both games, I am contributing to the story/imaginary space by inputing the actions of my character.

I suppose if the actions of the  PC were radically circumscribed in a sit-down game the way they are in a computer game (that is, if the GM just said "it's not in the module. I got nothin'.") then the SIS content might work out very similarly. But I think that the experience of playing the game must necessarily be very different.

[Wysardry]

Yes, but the "designer" of an RPG and the "designer" of a computer game do very different things, because computer games and RPGs are very different things. The experience of contribution to the SIS by the players is absent in computer games that I know of.

I don't see how that is relevant. The designers of LARPs and PBMs also do very different things, as they are also different, but they're still a type of RPG.

Although I'm not aware of it having been done yet, it would be possible to create a single rules system, campaign setting and series of adventures, then release PnP RPG, LARP, PBM and CRPG/MMORPG versions of them.

As far as the designers are concerned, the main difference between a PnP RPG and a CRPG is that additional people are required to create the code that replaces a human GM.

The "designer(s)" of human GMs cannot normally be directly communicated with during a game any more than the rules and campaign setting designers can.

Whether the contribution to the SIS is absent in computer games depends upon your point of view, and whether it is a multi-player game.

With most modern CRPGs, the publishers set up forums where comments, suggestions and feedback can be given before the game is even released. Morrowind and Diablo II, for example, have had a number of patches released to fix problems, adjust balance and add missing features, based upon player feedback.

[James Holloway]

Whether the contribution to the SIS is absent in computer games depends upon your point of view, and whether it is a multi-player game.

Sure. I'm not talking for a minute about multi-player games, which are another animal altogether.

To me the contribution of a group of human players is self-evidently different from the contribution of a computer program. But in the end this devolves back to "what is, and what is not, a role-playing game." Obviously, I'm prepared to admit a lot of activites involving other people (De Profundis, some types of wargame) and not ones without others (computer games, Fighting Fantasy).

You mentioned Morrowind, a game in which the player's contribution to SIS is pretty minimal. I can't imagine how playing it can be compared to an RPG.

[Wysardry]

You mentioned Morrowind, a game in which the player's contribution to SIS is pretty minimal. I can't imagine how playing it can be compared to an RPG.

Players who own an IBM compatible (rather than an Xbox console), can have more of an impact on the SIS than in most CRPGs.

First of all, via an Internet connection they have access to Bethesda's forums, where player input is taken notice of, even if it isn't always acted upon. If the developers believe a change is necessary/worthwhile, a patch is released which can be downloaded to modify the way the game runs.

Secondly, the player can activate an editor from within the game which will allow them to change literally thousands of variables, add new features and then save the modified version if they wish.

These "mods" can also be distributed to other players. Teams of players have banded together to create mods, which in my mind is definitely contributing to the SIS, even if the other options are borderline.