Walt Frietag: the LP in Solo CRPGs?

[Valamir]

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.

In an extraordinarily crucial way.

When a Computer checks its internal database for information on a molotav cocktail and doesn't find anything...nothing happens.  In a modern graphic based game you can click and drag on the image of the bottle all you want and it will never turn into a molotav cocktail.  In an old Text game you'd get a "I see no Molotav Cocktail here" message.  It simply won't (can't) ever happen.

When a human GM checks his/her internal database for information on a molotav cocktail and doesn't find anything (lets say the GM has never heard that term) any one of 4 things could happen.  1) the GM may decide that since they don't know enough about it to not allow it, or...2) The GM could choose to do some quick research to uncover the necessary information, 3) the player requesting it could explain to the GM what it is and how they think it should work so the GM can rule on it, or 4) the GM can just make something up...using that imagination that computers don't have.


Now substitute for molotav cocktail any activity, interaction, response, emotion, event, etc that any player may imagine doing...BIG difference between dealing with humans you can negotiate system with and a computer you can't.

So big, that I'd argue that the two things aren't even the same sort of game at all.  In all but the most superficial appearances...they have nothing in common.

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.

Except the ability to go out and learn as needed.  To be taught as needed.  Or to simply extrapolate, estimate, and invent as needed.

[Valamir]

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.

So what?

The most important thing that defines a roleplaying experience is not adhering to the rules written in the book.  The most important thing that defines roleplaying table is the social interactions between human beings crafting the shared imaginary space.  

How accurately a computer can reproduce the rules from the book makes not a bit of difference because the rules in the book are just superficial trappings of what is really going on.  A shell within in which actual play occurs.  The single most crucial most defining element of what a Role Playing Game is, is completely 100% totally absent from solo CRPG play.  You can recreate the shell...but you can't recreate what's inside the shell*.  And its what's inside that's important.


*until you start talking about MMORPGs which starts to combine elements of both.

[James Holloway]

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.

If the developers believe a change is necessary/worthwhile, a patch is released which

This is nice, but it's not play.

In Morrowind, every minute of gameplay reinforces the fact that you're playing a computer game. Go talk to General Darius and see what he has to say. What does he say? He says "why are you away from your post?" Well, firstly I don't even have a post and secondly I'm actually here on orders from him. So why does he say "why are you away from your post?" Because that's what he says. He only has like two or three things to say and that's one of them.

The way into this area is blocked by a flimsy wooden door, but I'm a huge slab of muscle armed with a ten-pound lump hammer. Too bad! It says the door is locked, and I'm stuffed (well, until I buy a scroll of Ondusi's Unhinging that is).

Merchants won't deal with anyone who has Skooma; Skooma is illegal. If you put the Skooma on the floor next to you, they'll deal with you, even if there's a cop standing right there. Why? Because they're characters in a computer game -- they don't really know what's going on around them.

Now, I suppose that you could run a tabletop RPG like this, with a bizarre insistence on not doing any interpretation or thought and a tendency to play the NPCs like robo-morons, but I don't think you'd get many takers.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying Morrowind. The sunsets are lovely. Do I contribute to the SIS? I guess so, within a narrow range of options -- if I kill that guar, it stays dead. But if you can't see why it's not the same thing as an RPG, I don't know what else I can tell you.

[Wysardry]

When a Computer checks its internal database for information on a molotav cocktail and doesn't find anything...nothing happens.  In a modern graphic based game you can click and drag on the image of the bottle all you want and it will never turn into a molotav cocktail.  In an old Text game you'd get a "I see no Molotav Cocktail here" message.  It simply won't (can't) ever happen.

That is a limitation in the current commercial game programs, not in the medium itself. A human who has lived an extremely isolated existence would not make a very good GM without being given detailed instructions, and even then they might struggle. If those instructions weren't given, where would the fault lay if the game went poorly?

When a human GM checks his/her internal database for information on a molotav cocktail and doesn't find anything (lets say the GM has never heard that term) any one of 4 things could happen.  1) the GM may decide that since they don't know enough about it to not allow it, or...2) The GM could choose to do some quick research to uncover the necessary information, 3) the player requesting it could explain to the GM what it is and how they think it should work so the GM can rule on it, or 4) the GM can just make something up...using that imagination that computers don't have.

A computer could be programmed to do all of those tasks.

The first is very simple, and almost all CRPGs do this as a last resort.

The second could be achieved via an Internet connection, by checking for updated versions of the database or accessing a larger database containing more obscure facts and figures.

The third could be done via an editor, a feature which is becoming more common in CRPGs.

The fourth could be done using "fuzzy logic", if there was enough relevant data available to make a "guess". I don't recall this ever being included in an obvious way in a commercial game, the most likely reason for which is that people tend not to like computers getting things wrong (making a bad guess). It is done to a very limited extent in multi-player games: when there's a poor connection the computer "guesses" where all the characters are and what they are doing.

Now substitute for molotav cocktail any activity, interaction, response, emotion, event, etc that any player may imagine doing...BIG difference between dealing with humans you can negotiate system with and a computer you can't.

So big, that I'd argue that the two things aren't even the same sort of game at all.  In all but the most superficial appearances...they have nothing in common.

The same answers I gave above could be applied to other activities. You can negotiate system with a computer if the designers provide options for doing so (and sometimes even if they don't). Maybe you can't do it vocally (in existing games), but neither can you in an IRC or PBM game.

Although computer RPGs are currently more limited than some other types, they are still part of the same general category of games.

Except the ability to go out and learn as needed.  To be taught as needed.  Or to simply extrapolate, estimate, and invent as needed.

Maybe computers can't go out (without a robot body), but they can do all the other tasks you mention.

I have a book on AI written in the 80s which includes listings written in BASIC for simple programs that do so, although it depends on your definition of "invent" whether they achieve the last (most "inventions" merely use existing concepts in a new way).

In Morrowind, every minute of gameplay reinforces the fact that you're playing a computer game. Go talk to General Darius and see what he has to say. What does he say? He says "why are you away from your post?" Well, firstly I don't even have a post and secondly I'm actually here on orders from him. So why does he say "why are you away from your post?" Because that's what he says. He only has like two or three things to say and that's one of them.

If you don't like a particular aspect of the game, and can't wait for a forum post to be acted upon, you can change it via the editor.

I don't see this as being any different than going out of character in a PnP game to discuss changes in the system.

However, I do believe there's room for improvement.

Now, I suppose that you could run a tabletop RPG like this, with a bizarre insistence on not doing any interpretation or thought and a tendency to play the NPCs like robo-morons, but I don't think you'd get many takers.

The question is, would it still be an RPG is you did?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying Morrowind. The sunsets are lovely. Do I contribute to the SIS? I guess so, within a narrow range of options -- if I kill that guar, it stays dead. But if you can't see why it's not the same thing as an RPG, I don't know what else I can tell you.

There's more to contributing to the SIS in Morrowind than merely killing things, as I mentioned before.

I'm not saying existing CRPGs are exactly the same as tabletop RPGs, but they are similar enough to fall under the umbrella term "RPG" (which includes PnP, tabletop, LARP, PBM etc.).

[James Holloway]

I'm not saying existing CRPGs are exactly the same as tabletop RPGs, but they are similar enough to fall under the umbrella term "RPG" (which includes PnP, tabletop, LARP, PBM etc.).

I'll buy all those, because crucially they all involve other players. But Morrowind doesn't -- I can't see how the player influences the SIS in play in a way that isn't also the case in Super Mario Brothers or Asteroids.

Heck, there isn't even an SIS -- there's no one else involved, so how can it be "shared?"

[Lance D. Allen]

Let's try to stay on topic, people. We're not arguing whether or not CRPGs are properly RPGs. We're discussing specifically how and if the Lumpley Principle can be applied to CRPGs. At the basis of that argument is, I believe, whether or not an SIS exists in CRPGs.

(parenthetical notes mine)

A computer could be programmed to do all of those tasks.

The first (doing nothing) is very simple, and almost all CRPGs do this as a last resort.

Which does not affect the point. When a GM does this, it's a choice. When a computer does it, there is no choice involved. It is what is programmed, and therefore must be done.

The second (research on the topic in question) could be achieved via an Internet connection, by checking for updated versions of the database or accessing a larger database containing more obscure facts and figures.

Which does not disprove the point. Ralph's argument is that CRPGs cannot do anything that the programmers have not allowed for ahead of time. If there are updated databases for the computer to check online, that's splendid.. But it's still something that the programmer's allowed to happen before the moment of play.

The third (explaining the topic in question) could be done via an editor, a feature which is becoming more common in CRPGs.

When a game allows me to edit it's databases on the fly so that a bottle of alcohol which was previously unable to be broken on the ground so that sharp shards of glass provided a hazard, and could be lit on fire is able to do so, then it might be the same thing. Though at that point, it's basic game-ness comes into question, because the ability to edit the computer isn't likely to be moderated by case-by-case judgement.

The fourth could be done using "fuzzy logic", if there was enough relevant data available to make a "guess". I don't recall this ever being included in an obvious way in a commercial game, the most likely reason for which is that people tend not to like computers getting things wrong (making a bad guess). It is done to a very limited extent in multi-player games: when there's a poor connection the computer "guesses" where all the characters are and what they are doing.

Fuzzy logic isn't imagination, by any stretch. Fuzzy logic still has to work within certain finite, pre-defined parameters. A bit of logic created to update a character's x/y location based on their general speed and direction despite not having that data on a step-by-step basis cannot realize that the player would really like to skip the travel time through bunny-level-enemy infested areas to where the action is, and simply frame the scene there. It is not going to make the inituitive connection that a bottle full of something designated "alcohol" which has the properties of getting anyone who "uses" it drunk can be used to start a fire unless it those properties are also assigned to the "alcohol".

Imagination is required for imaginative space; More than one imagination is required for shared imaginative space. A computer cannot, at this time, provide that.

[Wysardry]

I'll buy all those, because crucially they all involve other players.

What about traditional solo RPGs? If you don't believe they include a SIS, you're unlikely to consider a computer version has one.

But Morrowind doesn't -- I can't see how the player influences the SIS in play in a way that isn't also the case in Super Mario Brothers or Asteroids.

By pressing the "~" key, then editing the game. This can be done during play, though admittedly the action is paused (which would be the case during system changes in any other RPG)

Heck, there isn't even an SIS -- there's no one else involved, so how can it be "shared?"

Others are involved, they just don't happen to be providing input personally whilst you play. Other than the player, those contributing to the SIS include the original designers (writers, artists, programmers, musicians etc.), players who request patches and those who create additional mods (which can be complete adventures or slight modifications).

Which does not affect the point. When a GM does this, it's a choice. When a computer does it, there is no choice involved. It is what is programmed, and therefore must be done.

That is not strictly true. In the example, a GM would most likely do nothing when (s)he had no other choice or was being influenced in some way (lack of time for example).

A human GM also doesn't usually have a completely free hand to do whatever (s)he wishes, as his/her choices are limited by the system rules and the type of game the players want to be involved in.

What (s)he wishes is also restricted by his/her past experiences, knowledge, upbringing, personality etc. which is, in a way, a subtle type of programming.

Which does not disprove the point. Ralph's argument is that CRPGs cannot do anything that the programmers have not allowed for ahead of time. If there are updated databases for the computer to check online, that's splendid.. But it's still something that the programmer's allowed to happen before the moment of play.

A human GM cannot do something that is not allowed for (in some way) ahead of time either. The rules of the game have to allow them to look up info, make things up on the fly or whatever, and the GM also needs to have learned how to do so (regardless of who did the teaching).

When a game allows me to edit it's databases on the fly so that a bottle of alcohol which was previously unable to be broken on the ground so that sharp shards of glass provided a hazard, and could be lit on fire is able to do so, then it might be the same thing. Though at that point, it's basic game-ness comes into question, because the ability to edit the computer isn't likely to be moderated by case-by-case judgement.

So you're basically saying that until x happens, the computer can't be classed as a GM, but if x did happen, you'd immediately find another reason it couldn't?

It sounds like you trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Fuzzy logic isn't imagination, by any stretch.

No, it is merely a method which allows a computer to include shades of grey rather than just black and white when solving problems.

Fuzzy logic still has to work within certain finite, pre-defined parameters.

So do human thought processes and imagination. For example, try imagining something as simple as a completely new colour without using any existing colours as a reference point.

A bit of logic created to update a character's x/y location based on their general speed and direction despite not having that data on a step-by-step basis cannot realize that the player would really like to skip the travel time through bunny-level-enemy infested areas to where the action is, and simply frame the scene there. It is not going to make the inituitive connection that a bottle full of something designated "alcohol" which has the properties of getting anyone who "uses" it drunk can be used to start a fire unless it those properties are also assigned to the "alcohol".

A human could not make either of those assessments without prior knowledge and/or experience. They cannot know what a player wants without experiencing being a player in that situation or being told about it, and storing that in memory.

They also could not make the connection between alcohol and starting a fire without also knowing it is flammable. Possibly they could work out that alcohol can be used to start a fire by knowing it is flammable, but so could a computer program.

Imagination is required for imaginative space; More than one imagination is required for shared imaginative space. A computer cannot, at this time, provide that.

We would need very specific definitions for "imagination" and/or "imaginative" to make that assessment, and we would also need to dismiss the imaginations of the designers.

In a solo RPG, consisting of a single human player and a human GM, would there be a SIS if the GM had no imagination, but the game designers did?

[joshua neff]

Wysardry,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can any computer game make the leaps of logic, whimsy, emotion, social consideration and imagination that humans can? I don't want to know if it's theoretically possible, I want to know if there are any computer games that can actually do it. Even the least imaginative human is capable of having ninjas suddenly attack, for no other reason than it suits his or her fancy. Can any computer games do that? Humans can tell when other players of an RPG are getting tired or pissy or enthusiastic, and they can adjust play to suit that. Can any computer game? Humans can invent things during play. Can any computer games? When a human player creates stuff during play ("My character has the magic ring. He's had it all along, in his pocket, but he didn't know about it until now."), human GMs can react to that and change the game around that ("Cool! And now, I've suddenly decided that the magic ring can make you fly!"). Can a computer game do that? I don't mean with a sudden change in programming, I mean can the computer game, on its own, suddenly do that?

When playing Dogs in the Vineyard, you don't just Raise and See during conflicts. You also add narration to each one--narration that you make up on the spot. Each bit of narration is based on the narration of other players, and is based on the specific situation. Each bit of narration can be about what is happening right there and then--but the GM or any player can have their narration jump in time, to be a flashback, or to change the setting to the next day or a week later. Each bit of narration contributes to the SIS. Can any computer game that I could play do the same thing?

Honestly, right now, all I'm seeing is you splitting hairs. "What is imagination?" We all know what imagination is, for the purposes of playing RPGs, and I have yet to see or read about a computer game that comes anywhere close to the complex and nonlinear way human minds work. I have yet to see or read about any computer game in which the computer can simply make shit up, both in response to what other players make up and simply out of his or her own mind. Computers work through programs, in the literal sense. Human minds work through programs, in the metaphorical sense. Sometimes it's advantageous to see human minds as a set of programs. But the map is not the territory. Human minds aren't really run by programs, certainly not in the same sense as computers are, anymore than human bodies are "programmed" by DNA. Humans are far, far more complex than machines. Unless you can show me a computer game in which the game can actually transcend its programming to make shit up at whim, then all the split hairs in the world can't make a computer participate in the SIS.

[Wysardry]

As I see it, there are several problems inherent in this discussion.

The first is that ambiguous terms are being used to describe processes that the average person does not understand fully and/or cannot believe an inamimate object is capable of doing.

The second is that assumptions are being made that the processes of each must be exactly alike to be included in a general definition.

Thirdly, too great an emphasis is being placed on decisions being conscious, as if that is essential to the game. Once a human has done a particular task a few times, the process is taken over by the unconscious mind in subsequent attempts, which has much more in common with a computer mind.

Allowance also isn't being made for the fact that when running a CRPG program the computer is doing many more tasks than a human GM, and it does some of them much more quickly and efficiently.

Finally, what is actually happening inside a computer or human mind should make little difference, as the results are the important part if a role-playing game is all about the player's imagination and perception. In other words, whether the reason behind a group of ninjas attacking is the whim of a human or the result of a computer's random number generator should not matter, as the player should be concentrating on the SIS not the mechanics.

[James Holloway]

I'll buy all those, because crucially they all involve other players.

What about traditional solo RPGs? If you don't believe they include a SIS, you're unlikely to consider a computer version has one.

No, indeed they don't, because the "S" stands for "shared." The author of the book, designer of the RPG, designer of the computer game, are not making imaginative contributions to the SIS in play. So you are correct; Fighting Fantasy and so forth are not RPGs in this sense either.

The problem that clouds discussion is that superficially, Morrowind and Fighting Fantasy have many similarities in terms of mechanics, setting content, and so forth. But the experience of play is very different.

[Wysardry]

What about the one player + one GM solo RPGs? If they do have a SIS, then the question basically boils down to whether the player is willing to believe the computer GM has an artificial imagination.

[James Holloway]

What about the one player + one GM solo RPGs? If they do have a SIS, then the question basically boils down to whether the player is willing to believe the computer GM has an artificial imagination.

Yes, that's exactly the distinction, I reckon.

[contracycle]

No, the question of imagination, ontologically speaking anyway, is completely irrelevant.

I pretty much support Wysardry's debunking of Valamir argument; too much of this is starting to depend on special appeals to magical assumptions about people and our alleged creativity.  There is no distindtion between a programmer create an object that is "flammable fluid" and a GM, or designer, establishing this in the game.  

Joshua, no computer at present can produce "whimsy".  On the other hand, many many computers can interrogate a "wandering monster list" so huge that it appears whimsical.  And you only "make up narration" in order to communicate the idea - the computers equivalent is drawing or moving a sprite.  Nobody has said that a computer IS human and to try to twist the issue to that topic would make it a straw man.
--

This is the real issue - why do we not recognises the computers internal space?  Biological prejudice it seems - if it was made with silicon instead of grey goo it must be different.  How do you communicate with a computer? - through mouse and keyboard.  I move the mouse... a representation is drawn both for my and the machines other parts... and if a condition is met, like (if.mousover) then a response is returned.

How is this different from "you see a door" and "we open it"?  It is not.  The difference is that instead of the words "you see a door" coming out of a human mouth, a door is drawn by the machine.  Drawing that image IS the machines contribution to the SIS.  Like a GM, the machine may have a much larger internal space which it checks than just that section of it visible to a character.

Yes, a computer has an internal space.  We could argue about the term "imaginary" but I point to the deliberate blurring the term "virtual" is used to denote between "real" and "fake".    A computer has an internal space just like you do; if imagination is anything, it is moving information around, and only information.   And this is necessarily a SHARED space because the player has an avatar in it; and it is represented so that the machine and the player do have a commone representation and theirt imaginations are thus synchronised.

They seem like the same beast to me.

[James Holloway]

No, the question of imagination, ontologically speaking anyway, is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, looked at in the cold light of day I'm not sure that's verifiable. Although I do think that the *type* of input the computer provides is important.

It must, in the end, boil down to experience of play -- the practice of playing Morrowind is sufficiently different from RPGs that it's not very useful to disucss it in the same terms. One of these reasons is that it involves no other participants, the computer not being a participant any more than the rulebook, dice or miniatures are participants in a regular game.

[Callan S.]

What about the one player + one GM solo RPGs? If they do have a SIS, then the question basically boils down to whether the player is willing to believe the computer GM has an artificial imagination.

Wysardry, what role do you ideally imagine the GM is there for?

* Is he there, so I can play?

* Or is he there, so I can possibly learn something from his experience, as I play?

For the former, any responce from the computer GM is just fine to support play. If you just want to play, then the computer does have the imaginative needs to forfil this. Because if you just want to play, this goal doesn't contain any desire for feedback from peers. The sort of 'imaginative' responce required to forfill issolated play actually needs to be below sentient. If the feedback was sentient, then you'd be doing something beyond just wanting to play. You'd be wanting to play with peers.

Okay, so you might instead say that you want to learn something from the peers experience of the world, while playing.

If so, would you be willing to accept a responce from the game saying 'Dude, your roleplaying sucks, I'm out of here' and the game stops running and it wont ever run again, no matter what you do. No reloads, no hacking it's files, it's walked out on you. It's stopped giving you cred. (And no, this doesn't already happen when you die in a computer game...being returned to the main menu is not an example of the computer walking away from you)

Could you come to game, fully ready to accept that?

If not, then you just want to play by yourself. You are not interested in someone else deciding something like that...but to play with others at all, you simply have to accept that.

AI that supports 'I just want to play' will not support the play others are talking about here. They are talking about playing with peers.

And that's just the first step. The next topic is asking whether that AI is going to show you anything you didn't already learn in your first few years of life. Particularly, if it's just going to parrot it's creators experiences. If a parrot can sing the words of a human song and you learn this song from hearing it, did you learn that song from the parrot?