Computer RPG's and the difference perceived

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I've been staying out of this because I don't play CRPGs, at all. Haven't done so since my Commodore 64 stopped working.

But I'm getting into it now because I don't play them precisely for the kind of reason which is asserted against them.

The way I would put it is more like this: In a CRPG, I am often stymied by the fact that I can conceive of the character doing something which seems to be completely within the ordinary abilities of that (or perhaps even any) character which should impact the situation, and I am unable to do that because the programmer failed to recognize this as a possibility.

Now, with some games, that's a given--games like DiscWorld and Hitchhiker's Guide weren't really RPGs, but elaborate puzzles in which players had to work out the solutions each step of the way to move to the next step. In those cases, what's annoying is that they have the label "CRPG" when they're really puzzles. Some people like such puzzles; some do not. I don't care for them because I'm not interested in trying to figure out how the programmer thought it should be solved. I'm interested in finding original ways of solving the problems and puzzles with which the game confronts the player--and CRPGs cannot evaluate the probability of success of an original solution which has not been previously recognized by the programmer. Thus a plot that I think would work well as an RPG doesn't work well as a CRPG, because the referee in the RPG has the ability to analyze whether my idea has a chance of success.

In other games, system limitations usually minimize the degree to which a player is able to play the character. That's the problem. It isn't that there are things I can't do--that's part of every game, and is called the rules. It's that there are things that I should be able to do but which the system won't allow. It will let me pick up the jar and examine it; it will let me hit the enemy with my sword. Why will it not let me hit the enemy with the jar? It will let me fill the lamp with oil and light it; why can't I throw it to set fire to a room?

The problem thus is that there are things I can conceive of the character doing, for which he seems to have every necessary skill, which he cannot do or which don't have the obvious logical effects they should, because the coder didn't foresee them.

Most of the rest of the stuff isn't a problem for me.

--M. J. Young

[Marhault]

It the involvement of the machine, and what it can do, that makes it a whole different ball game.

I think that this is the heart of this discussion.  The only inherent difference between a tabletop RPG and a computer (or console) RPG is the machine that you use.  What are the machine's strengths and weaknesses?

I see the primary strengths of an electronic gaming format as lying in the video and audio experience it gives.  Being able to see your character performing his actions, knowing what that horrible monster looks like, etc. can be very enjoyable.  Computer and console games do sim reality (to a degree, at least), they just have more restrictions placed on them than the average tabletop RPG.  

The weaknesses of the format all stem from the same problem.  If it wasn't there when the game shipped, it won't be there when the game is played.  This gives rise to both the end-of-map phenomenon, and the unreasonable restrictions to character actions that M. J. Young describes.  These things are restricted both by planning (the Game Designer never thought of that particular solution) and hardware restrictions.  The computer cannot improvise a situation it has not been programmed for, therefore, it is incapable of providing a gameplay environment as versatile as one that is run by a human with the capability to invent plausible answers to nearly any question.

The "social contract" that noon describes really exists for all games.  Each player must decide whether they're willing to look past the shortcomings of a given game in order to enjoy playing it.  M. J. Young has clearly made the decision to not play CRPGs because certain aspects of these games are found unappealing.  I have made this decision about certain tabletop games and about individual sessions or campaigns, based on aspects of those games.  These decisions might be based on system, (No thanks, I don't like Traveller) personality, (I don't get along with Charlie, so I should probably not join your group) or whatever. (Why can my character pick up this vial of posion, but not that wine bottle?)

So. . .  What's your decision?

[Callan S.]

O.K., I've been staying out of this because I don't play CRPGs, at all. Haven't done so since my Commodore 64 stopped working.

But I'm getting into it now because I don't play them precisely for the kind of reason which is asserted against them.

The way I would put it is more like this: In a CRPG, I am often stymied by the fact that I can conceive of the character doing something which seems to be completely within the ordinary abilities of that (or perhaps even any) character which should impact the situation, and I am unable to do that because the programmer failed to recognize this as a possibility.

Now, with some games, that's a given--games like DiscWorld and Hitchhiker's Guide weren't really RPGs, but elaborate puzzles in which players had to work out the solutions each step of the way to move to the next step. In those cases, what's annoying is that they have the label "CRPG" when they're really puzzles.

Or we can call it heavy railroading. In the vast number of stories on RPG.net about railroading, for example, none try to say that because of it they weren't in an RPG. In a very bad RPG session, yes, but still an RPG session.

Some people like such puzzles; some do not. I don't care for them because I'm not interested in trying to figure out how the programmer thought it should be solved. I'm interested in finding original ways of solving the problems and puzzles with which the game confronts the player--and CRPGs cannot evaluate the probability of success of an original solution which has not been previously recognized by the programmer. Thus a plot that I think would work well as an RPG doesn't work well as a CRPG, because the referee in the RPG has the ability to analyze whether my idea has a chance of success.

It is rarely, IMO, a cold analysis on success chance. It is more like bargaining most of the time. Basically, as long as the player can walk away from the table at any time because of disgust, it's bargaining.

That being said, bargaining possible to varying degree's on a computer. A very basic and unintentional effort toward this is fate point thingies in Arcanum, that can be used to extract a critical or auto pass a pick pocket attempt, etc when you want.

More sophisticated versions, to help edge away from railroading, could be developed. They aren't, because the computer game industry is pretty conservative.

In other games, system limitations usually minimize the degree to which a player is able to play the character. That's the problem. It isn't that there are things I can't do--that's part of every game, and is called the rules. It's that there are things that I should be able to do but which the system won't allow. It will let me pick up the jar and examine it; it will let me hit the enemy with my sword. Why will it not let me hit the enemy with the jar? It will let me fill the lamp with oil and light it; why can't I throw it to set fire to a room?

I had a dwarf once. He had two attacks and was KEWL! Anyway, there was a bad guy behind me and one in front so I said to the GM 'In drawing my axe back behind me to swing at the one in front, it'll swing at the guy behind me as well. Chop behind, chop forward'. Hardly feng shui (sp?). The GM just says no. So I just hack at the guy in front, then turn around and do the guy behind me. SAME exact effect, only more boring.

As for hitting a foe with a jar, you can only really argue that it spoils suspension of disbelief for you. But then again, if you bought the game, you agreed to a certain type of play. If one agrees to over the top action then specialises in basket weaving, then its not the games fault if things go wrong. If you agree to a world which is largely non interactive then try to interact with it and it spoils your suspension of disbelief, aren't you just doing that to yourself?

The problem thus is that there are things I can conceive of the character doing, for which he seems to have every necessary skill, which he cannot do or which don't have the obvious logical effects they should, because the coder didn't foresee them.

Most of the rest of the stuff isn't a problem for me.

--M. J. Young

The only real problem with this is that it blindsides you. You buy a computer product, you know there will be limmitations (just as when you buy a TRPG book, you know there will be abstractions). You get into it, you glide along and you come up against somthing and click, you think of a kewl answer...and you just can't do it.

You did agree there would be limmitations, but usually how they manifest comes up unexpectetedly/jarringly.

But then again, with people being so different, I expect every GM to have limmitations as well. And like with that dwarf thing and some other stuff he did, it would come unexpectedly.

Then there's just steering around problems. I think we all know our GM's have limmitations, and we usually try and steer around them for the benefit of our own suspension of disbelief. But in CRPG's there seems to be an undercurrent line of thought of 'I shouldn't have to steer around'. Probably because we respect people have limmitations, but objects don't get our respect in that regard.

[Callan S.]

The weaknesses of the format all stem from the same problem.  If it wasn't there when the game shipped, it won't be there when the game is played.  This gives rise to both the end-of-map phenomenon, and the unreasonable restrictions to character actions that M. J. Young describes.  These things are restricted both by planning (the Game Designer never thought of that particular solution) and hardware restrictions.  The computer cannot improvise a situation it has not been programmed for, therefore, it is incapable of providing a gameplay environment as versatile as one that is run by a human with the capability to invent plausible answers to nearly any question.
*snip*

Well, that's the ideal. There are a lot of GM's who are heavy railroaders. Still more will railroad to maintain their fantastic story line. And as I've said, if its about bargaining, its not about providing answers, its about providing a deal. Which is quite different and not so far out of a computers reach.

Weve got a mutual understanding in the rest of your post, but I just wanted to comment about this.

[John Kim]

The weaknesses of the format all stem from the same problem.  If it wasn't there when the game shipped, it won't be there when the game is played.  This gives rise to both the end-of-map phenomenon, and the unreasonable restrictions to character actions that M. J. Young describes.  These things are restricted both by planning (the Game Designer never thought of that particular solution) and hardware restrictions.  The computer cannot improvise a situation it has not been programmed for, therefore, it is incapable of providing a gameplay environment as versatile as one that is run by a human with the capability to invent plausible answers to nearly any question.

OK, my computer RPG experience is limited to MUDs, and not even a wide variety of that.  I'm not sure if online computer RPGs are included in this discussion, but they at least don't suffer from the fixed-as-shipped problem.  

Object-oriented MUDs in particular are designed to be easily extensible: players can create new objects, areas, and so forth.  The same is seen in a few graphical online CRPGs, such as There -- where players can design new stuff to go into the game.  However, since the player has to provide the graphics it is a lot harder than just providing text.  Still, it is similar in principle.  This is the equivalent of narrative power in a tabletop RPG.

[Marhault]

Object-oriented MUDs in particular are designed to be easily extensible: players can create new objects, areas, and so forth.  The same is seen in a few graphical online CRPGs, such as There -- where players can design new stuff to go into the game.  However, since the player has to provide the graphics it is a lot harder than just providing text.  Still, it is similar in principle.  This is the equivalent of narrative power in a tabletop RPG.

Interesting.  My CRPG experience doesn't include any MUD (or MMORPG) time at all.  It always seemed to me that this sort of game was very limited in terms of story and such, so I never got into them.  How do these sort of games handle the end of map problem?

[Mike Holmes]

I was under the assumption that this refered to computer moderated games, and not ones that were simply played in an electronic medium. These are distinctly different things.

There was a thread not too far back in which we discussed exactly the diviing lines, of these things and it was my contention that what made CRPGs more "wargamey" than "RPG" is exactly what was said above - the notion that my character (or any in-game element) can do anything that's plausible for it to do. That, as soon as you limit the options to some finite set, that it becomes less of a RPG.

That said, there is the question of the "tabletop" ruleset as part of the medium. That is, in a "freeform" game in which there are no algorithmic rules,  has no limits outside of Imagination - this we'll call ultimate freedom. Tabletop games do require you to follow algothithms at times to determine outcomes, and to the extent that the input options may limit action they tend to be more "wargamey", IMO.

I'm not drawing a line, now, but trying to define a quality of a spectrum.

Some tabletop games do seem to allow near infinite inputs to resolution, and near infinite outputs. Hero Quest is one example. You're only limited in what Ability you decide to use at the time, which are arbitrary in the first place. So that seems to be about as close to freeform on this spectum as you can get, and still have algorithms (there may be even better system examples). On the other end of the spectrum are CRPGs where your inputs for resolution are very limited in relative terms. Even in GURPS or such mechanistic games, the system can be stretched to cover a really wide variety of inputs.

So, that's the real difference to me. As technology on AI improves, I'm sure we'll see games that are less and less limiting. But for the moment the difference is pronounced enough to be the most important factor, IMO, in player choice of venue.

Mike

[Callan S.]

Well, to steer back to where I began with this post, it is supposed to be about computer moderated games.

Mike Holmes: I agree with that spectrum. Also you might notice that as you get more wargamey, you get a stronger sense of there being a defined 'win' state. Just saying that as an interesting side note.

Okay, now, I'm going to do somthing horrible and make a tenuous link to the 'what is realism?' thread ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8933 ). Horrible because that thread isn't really answered but I'm making up an answer from it...yup, tenuous.

Now, from what I understand it, the basic answer is this (and if it isn't, this post crashes and burns now, pity me!)

1. All games have to have abstraction.
2. Everyone doesn't share the same view on what elements of reality should suffer the most or least abstraction.
3. Therefore, one can not responsibly say 'Aww, that game isn't realistic!'. One can only say 'Aww, that game abstracted reality in a way that doesn't fit my tastes on what should be abstracted!'

Now lets port this over to CRPG's (God, I'm making up answers then porting them over to answer somthing else...I'm going to hell! >:) )

1. All gaming sessions have limits (even if suspension of disbelief tells us were in 'another world', rather than the more limited 'brokering imagined space deals').
2. Everyone doesn't share the same view on what elements of roleplaying should suffer the most or least limitations.
3. Therefore, one can not responsibly say 'That's not a roleplay game'. One can only say 'That game is limited in ways that doen't fit my tastes on what should be limited. Furthermore I can not commit to portraying a role in that environment because of this.'

There. I wonder if thats any good? Anyway, one good thing about this is it goes from 'yes, it is a RPG/no it isn't' to a spectrum instead, based on user desires. RPG is in the eye of the beholder? :)

Side note: Probably if enough of a percent of people say 'That game is limited in ways that doen't fit my tastes on what should be limited. Furthermore I can not commit to portraying a role in that environment because of this.' about a game, then at least in practical terms you could treat it as not being an RPG. 'Practical terms' being a little more robust than wondering what somthing truely is.

[John Kim]

Object-oriented MUDs in particular are designed to be easily extensible: players can create new objects, areas, and so forth. ...  This is the equivalent of narrative power in a tabletop RPG.

Interesting.  My CRPG experience doesn't include any MUD (or MMORPG) time at all.  It always seemed to me that this sort of game was very limited in terms of story and such, so I never got into them.  How do these sort of games handle the end of map problem?

Well, players can create new areas, but it takes a fair amount of time and usually not everyone has permission to do so.  On the MUD I was on, there was a hierarchy and only certain "immortals" had permissions to modify the game world or settings.  However, even beginning players were allowed to have limited input.  For example, I made a house for my PC -- a new small area with descriptions which I wrote.  One definitely can't improvise like in a tabletop game where the GM makes up new locations on the fly while the players are going to them.  

I would say that MUDs are definitely computer-moderated.  Play goes on for the most part without the attention of immortals.  So you can't just walk off the edge of the map.  However, over time the environment does grow and change in response to the players and by the players.  So if you're disappointed that there aren't X sort of objects, maybe you can make them yourself or have an immortal (a player with higher permissions) make them.  If you're interested in what is beyond the sea, that area might come into being and reflect player interests.

[Kataphraktos]

I registered to this forum almost soley to reply in this thread (found it on a google search for rpg +pc.  

 To be honest I dont totaly get the gist of the main post, but I do get that the topic in general is about the difference between crpg's and pnp rpg's.  I really think a uniform set of terms needs to be established in order to discuss the topic most clearly and effectively.  The first post (no offense intended) left me with the impression that there really is no uniform terminology or it would have been used in siting some sort of standard by which to answer the main question:  The perceived differences between crpgs and rpgs.  

 In my mind what seperates an RPG from other types of games is Story.  Not just plot and not just character development or roleplaying, but developing a character through roleplaying and advancing the plot in the process.  

 There is alot more to it than that, for example, what makes good fiction is very close and in many cases the same, as what makes a good role playing game; ie. Creating a condition where it is easy for the player to suspend his or her disbeleif, avoiding cliches as much as possible, "showing" rather than "telling" etc.

 These standards should apply as much to CRPG's as they do pnp RPGs.  

 Unlike fiction however, an RPG relies almost as much on the player creating the story as it does the designer or GameMaster- the same rules of "good fiction" apply to players as well.  The ratio of author/designer/dm
story creation output to player story creation output is probably something like 60% author/gm and 40% player.  

 Depending on the degree of PC freedom of action, the ratio is somewhat altered in a CRPG.  The more freedom the player has, the more his percentage climbs, the less freedom, the lower.  

 One of the primary differences between written fiction and an RPG is the medium of the Game Master.  The GameMaster is the players interface to the fictional world and everything in it.  CRPGs that have very little GameMaster involvement lower the players input on the game while more GameMaster involvement heightens it.  

 So, my conclusion (which I think has already been reached in part here) is that as computer technology advances, there will be more and more GameMaster involvement and also more and more freedom of action for PC's.  But we aren't THAT far away from this point now.  

 Take NeverWinterNights as an example.  In reality, NWN is an action game with just enough roleplaying elements to make it an action-based rpg.  The main element that makes NWN an rpg is certainly not freedom of player action but rather the heavy involvement of DM's (and DM/fan designers).  

 With a DM you never need to run out of map.  You WILL hit an area at the edge of the map that transfers you to another map.  It is not a big deal for a DM (in nwn) to have premade generic maps for just such a situation.  The player runs to the edge of the map where the main plot elements (in a given scenario) are and you simply transport his character to one of the generic maps you have already made.  To me, the device is not so much for the sake of plot as it is for ease of suspension of disbeleif.  

NWN is hardly perfect, but the technology exists now to make a similar game with heavy GameMaster involvement that includes a rather large degree of character freedom- every object that in normal life could be handled, would be something the character could interface with.

 Oh well...in the end, and IMO, the distinction between an rpg and a simple work of fiction is the function of GameMaster as an interface between the player and the game.  Without the GameMaster/DM/Referee, no matter how good it is, its just passive interaction- like reading a story or watching a movie.

[Mike Holmes]

Kat, Welcome to the Forge,

Actually, we have a lot of terminology around here, and that jargon may, in fact be some of what's confusing you. That is, some of what may appear to you to be undefined terms may in fact be well defined. In terms of CRPGs, probably not. But things like "exploration" at this site have specific meanings that may not match the use that you're used to.

Just a heads up.

That said, everybody, consider that Kat here doesn't know the language yet before trying to set him straight on anything. Please don't anyone go near "story". ;-)

You make some good points I think, Kat, and I for one look forward to you getting aquainted with our strange ways here.

Mike

[Kataphraktos]

Thanks Mike!  Yes, I definitely don't know the terminology here and am not sure how much there is or isn't for crpgs.  I also wasn't trying to say whats what or that I'm right so "I'm gonna tell you".  Its just that you can only write "in my opinion" etc so many times.  

 I look forward to browsing through more topics/forums here and learning more about what you guys do on a regular basis- making rpgs.

[Callan S.]

Okay, this thread has drifted a little. In my first post, the basic points were:

1. In traditional RPG's, just because you've made a fast talker, does that mean you should be able to fast talk your way out of everything? Yes, in a better RL game it should (in that the GM and player collaborate on what they want to happen). But there are a hell of a lot of roleplaying going on at tables out there that don't have this 'better' component. So why should CRPG's be considered different when they don't have this component either.

2. You can't do everything you want at a traditional table top game. I'm sorry, but your GM is working in leaps of abstraction, just like the computer game is. You can't do everything, you can only do an approximation. But yes, in traditional table top you might be able to hit your foe with a bottle, while the game doesn't let you, for example. However, there are GM's out there that can be just as limmiting, while programming could be far more flexible than said GM's. But players continue to encourage those inflexible GM's by playing with them and consumers continue to encourage programmers to be lazy by buying far too limmited code. This is less about the capabilities of computers and more about what people are accepting as somthing like a social contract condition of how flexible things are. What do they say in the matrix movies? The problem is choice? ;)

[Mike Holmes]

As I've said previously, the difference is that, even if the GM is limited, there's this feeling that he isn't. That is, if we play freeform, the only limitations on what we can explore is our collective imaginations. In a CRPG, you come to soon understand the limits of the exploration. In a CRPG if you want to go off the map and can't you feel that it's a limitation of the system. In an RPG if you want to go off the map you feel that it's just the GM being lazy, and he could do it if he wanted to do it.

So, while the difference might only be one of degree in some technical sense, the perception of difference is there. They feel different (to many, I assume, and to me at the very least).

Mike

[Callan S.]

I was going to address that 'feeling' mentioned about the GM being more flexible, but I wasn't sure if you percieved it as something really there or more a matter of faith.

Heh heh, this reminds me of stuff like women who stay with asshole men. 'Oh, he wont screw around on me again, I know it, I know he's good inside!'. Well, he aint, sweetie! And it parralels with the GM who wont extend the map or flex a module (RPGnet had a good story on one of those recently).

But I will agree. One can't put faith into a computer game, while one can put faith in a human being. Then again, the computer game, for this reason, wont end up betraying what faith you put into it (none/near zero, really).

Perhaps that's the main difference felt in general. But at a practical level, is it different?