MMORPGs; totally alien from P&PRPGs??

[Daniel B]

I don't suppose any one could post an actual list of links to the intros??

I found the links once, but at the time I was looking for "System Does Matter". Yes, I could find them with more wandering or (if I decided to embrace insanity) the search function, but if someone's already got them bookmarked, you'd be doing me a favour.

Dan/Shallow Thoughts

[soundmasterj]

My post got eaten by the server :|

Dan, forge articles can be found by looking at the top-right corner of this mere site. Or by reading my posts, where I linked them.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/ gamism
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/27/ glossary

I hereby reiterate how you should read the gamism article, too. An important disctintion Ron made there is how "killer" behavior may as well be good clean fun (lets play gladiators! Are we killers now?  If so, if being a killer is wrong I don´t wanna be right.) and exactly where and why it isn´t. Some killers are gamists, some not.
Also, I´m sorry for introducing the SIS term without just linking you to the forge glossary in the first place, because your error wasn´t incoherence, but just unfamilarity with the forge terminology.

Callan, I think you´re wrong. SIS is what makes games RPGs in the Big Model sense. I´m inclined to call Yathzee or some wargames gamist, but they got no SIS. So you may play D&D without it being a RPG (in the Big Model sense) at all! If I want to roll better than you because what it makes us both imagine, it´s an RPG (in BM sense), if I just want to roll better, it isn´t.
Also, SIS isn´t a technique, it is what techniques helps us do.

My question now is this. Is there narrativist play without SIS? Is the fact that I can´t think of any narr play without SIS a technical problem or an essential fact of SIS?

[soundmasterj]

I imagine how we completely control the avatars in an MMORPG. We set them up on a conflict. We have them adress premise. It only works if we sharedly imagine them to have some kind of internal reality or it´s just bytes.
I imagine how we control different actors by microphones in their ears. We set up a drama situation, does Julius (played by an actor controlled by me) chose duty over friendship? But we have to sharedly imagine Julius feeling some kind of internal struggle (and we both now that the actor playing julius doesn´t).
Say we control animals by brain implants and raido. Our premise is: does mass beat might? Your antswarm eats my rat. I don´t even know if that´s a premise, but it is only a story if we imagine that we didn´t actually set up that situation, making it represent something, but that it WAS the situation. So we need SIS.
Say our game is we introduce memes into a society. Our premise is, mean beats nice. My mean meme beats your nice one. But now it isn´t narr play, it is reality. We don´t need no SIS, but it isn´t "narr" neither, because we are making reality behave like a story, we don´t play story.

It seems to me that narrativism needs SIS because we need it to be like reality, but not reality.

(We roll dice, to have gamism we only need to value something, not imagine something. Simulationism... we take mind-altering drugs or something..? Now we don´t have an SIS, neither. Or we play MMORPGs in ways I´d call sim or gam, we don´t need SIS. We may have SIS, but we don´t need it.)

[Daniel B]

Oooh, didn't see that little "Articles" link in the top right. Whoopsie.

Don't ALL pieces of fiction have to be somewhat like reality? Otherwise, you're talking realms that are outside our ability to imagine. Pure mathematics deals with spaces of topologies we can't even begin to picture in our heads.

Dan

[soundmasterj]

I definitely am not talking about what fiction is in the actual play forum of the forge. Narr play isn´t fiction, it might produce fiction, but it´s play. what I´m asking is if there is Narr play without SIS. I can´t even begin to picture it in my head right now.

[Moreno R.]

My question now is this. Is there narrativist play without SIS? Is the fact that I can´t think of any narr play without SIS a technical problem or an essential fact of SIS?

I can tell you my experience in playing "live" games, without a common SIS (it's a situation rather similar to a MMORPG from this point of view: you can play without a CA because you can simply avoid people who disrupt your play. In tabletop games you would have to find another group to do so).

In these games, I have seen that the only way to get to play "story now" START by getting a SIS together (all the people have to be in the same place and everybody have to see and listen to anything others do). Then there are other techniques, but the first step is always getting a SIS together.

I think you can have "role-playing" without a SIS (like in most live games), but you can't have "story now" without one, Without one, everybody play pretty much for himself, there is no "story".

[soundmasterj]

Of course, the shared assumption here is that play where exploration without SIS is the highest priority is still sim, just not roleplaying-in-Big Model-terms sim and that stepping on up in context of obstacles not in the SIS is still gam, just not Big Model RPG gam. Otherwise, none of the CAs works without SIS; and that´s what Big Model states, exploration through SIS as highest priority makes for sim, overcoming challenge in SIS through stepping on up makes for gam. So Big Model says MMORPGs are mostly neither RPGs in Big Model terms nor gam/sim.

However, to me, MMORPG as challenge and as primarily exploration feels a lot similar similar to sim and gam P&P RPGS. When I play a computer game with my friends, I talk just like I talk and get excited just like I get excited when I play shadowrun. Gamism, I think, depends on shared value which in Big Model RPGs takes on the form of SIS; Sim depends on something to explore which in a Big Model RPG is in SIS, but might also be experienced in other forms of play all alone.

So my next question is, is there anything that SIS-less games will never be able to do on principle that is inherently supporting gamism? Because when I play shadowrun, i use the SIS as a medium of tactical positioning that´s a lot more flexible than a hex map or a MMORPG.  But MMORPGs will get more flexible. Which gamism-supporting rules are easily articulated in context of an SIS, but not in context of a computer game?

[Caldis]

I have some experience with MMO's but not a lot, for purposes of this post I'll be talking mostly about my experience playing WOW.  Take that as a frame of reference and consider that other games have a notably different play experience.

I think you can use the big model to look at certain aspects of MMO's but the thing you have to remember is that it is dealing with group goals so considering that itch in your head that's getting satisfied by play isnt enough.  What you need to see is how a bunch of people act together overtime.

So wanting to travel and see new scenery isnt a sign of sim in one person but if you have a group that are committed to doing it it can be.  In most mmo's I've played that's not enough to keep anyones interest for long usually there are many more things like in WOW you dont just travel to a new ares for the scenery, you travel to find new quests that keep you interacting with the environment.  The environment usually isnt very challenging and even if you do rush into something a little to tough for you the penalties for dieing are small.   In a lot of areas it's much more efficient to travel with a group so if you bring a group of people together and they are all agreed on exploring this area and doing this bunch of quests you have something approaching functional sim.  There is a built in reward cycle of levelling up, qualifying for new quests and eventually outgrowing an area and being directed to a new one with a whole new set of quests and an environment to explore.

Played differently WoW supports gamism as well.  It's mostly in raiding or the battlegrounds.  Raids are much more challenging and the rewards and cost of failure can be quite a bit higher.  If you are far enough into a raid and you end up with the group getting wiped it often causes people to bail out on the attempt and makes the group miss out on the rare items that you can acquire only in the raid.  The group make up in this style play is usually much more exlusive as well.  Players are chosen based on their ability to play smart and not accidently pull extra enemies to the group.

[Vulpinoid]

I think you can have "role-playing" without a SIS (like in most live games), but you can't have "story now" without one, Without one, everybody play pretty much for himself, there is no "story".

Sorry, but I think this requires more explanation...and even though I admit that this explanation is getting away from the topic of this thread, It's got me intrigued.

I would have considered "Live Roleplaying" without and SIS to be Real Life...it's where we go through the motions of social interaction with the people around us, we commit violence at the risk of repercussions, we strive to advance ourselves, or sacrifice degrees of self-advancement to further the community around us.

Once you step into a "Live Gaming Space", whether that is an MMORPG or physically dressing up in costume, you leave certain real world conventions behind. Suddenly you have access to skills, powers or  setting that is different from your mundane life and thus a realm of shared imagination is born. I would have though that it is the agreement of certain imagination parameters that forms the basis of the SIS. The SIS is born as soon as two or more people agree on an imagination parameter.

Two people get onto a server or LAN and play a game of WoW, and they are playing a role in a world that they've agreed apon. If one player is using a bunch of mods to re-invent their WoW experience into a Middle Earth Paradigm, then suddenly they don't share the same imagination space and the communications become irrelevant. If they both use these mods, then the SIS is re-established.

Two people walk into a room in period costume and start talking to one another, it's just regular talking. If they start putting on accents or referring to historical events as though personally taking part in them, then roleplaying is born and an SIS develops.

From this perspective (and please argue with me if you think it's a skewed view), all roleplaying has an SIS at it's core...

Gamist play seeks to dominate that space (or at least dominate and overpower the other members sharing it).
Simulationist play seeks to explore that space (to identify its boundaries and its differences with the "real world").
Narrativist play seeks to develop stories within the space (to evolve it and to move it in new directions).

Without an SIS, gamist play is just a competition of dice rolls/card draws/one-upmanship, I don't think it's roleplaying at all, because there are no roles being played. Once a role is played and someone else accepts that the person is playing a role, there is an SIS.

Whether the second party accepts to take part in the SIS is another matter entirely.

Just my thoughts.

V

[soundmasterj]

Why oh why did I bring up the dreaded terminology in the first place!

Vulpinoid, pixels on a computer screen aren´t what SIS means. SIS means that something is only "there" if and because we agree it is. Us playing WoW, you watching over my shoulder while I level my orc dude, me thinking there´s an orc running around in Azeroth, you thinking there´s just some pixels on a computer screen doesn´t change the fact that we see an orc running around. (Of course, as I´ve shown there is some SIS in MMORPGs). Us playing D&D, me saying it´s an orc I´m rolling dice against, you saying you´re not playing anymore, you want to play Yathzee now, that changes a lot about that orc. We are no longer sharedly imagining it. That´s why the second orc is a SIS orc, the first one isn´t.
If we played WoW together and you were using a mod that made all of your pixels different, that might not influence SIS in the slighest. Say we imagine my guy and your guy hating each other. Tha´s SIS (because obviously, our guys don´t hate anybody, they´re just pixels, and you and me, we like each other, otherwise we wouldn´t be playing together). If you see my guy as a Tolkien orc while I see him as a WoW orc, it doesn´t need to influence what we agree about him at all (it could, though).

From this perspective (and please argue with me if you think it's a skewed view), all roleplaying has an SIS at it's core...

We already did in this thread. Big Model says it´s roleplaying if there is SIS. However, there are thing most people would call "roleplaying activity" where no SIS is required; the Big Model says it´s not roleplaying in the Big Model sense, but we say it might be roleplaying in the sense that it´s for example a computer game where some rules are somewhat like D&D.
If we LARP and I don´t care what you think, I just want to hit you on the head with my fake sword and you want to poke me in the groin with your fake spear, there is no SIS. Still, I´d call it roleplaying; not Big Model roleplaying though. There is nothing to argue about.

Whether the second party accepts to take part in the SIS is another matter entirely.

What? How would we agree without you taking part in the agreement? You mean, the second party doesn´t have to take on a role on it´s own? If so, I think I´d agree. It means that when I make up a story and you agree that that´s what happened in the story, it´s roleplaying. Sounds somewhat weird, but I think it holds.

Well, originaly I brought SIS up because Bartles´ HCDS talked about action on the world without interaction amongst players whereas in P&P RPG, there is no such thing. Therefore, I concluded, HCDS wasn´t too usefull in context of for P&P RPGs. I stand by that point; I´d like to know where there actually IS SIS in MMORPGs (besides sex). MUDs seem to be full of it, but WoW? When I played WoW (all 5 minutes of it), I didn´t sharedly imagine anything.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I ran a Forge search on "MMORPG" specifying the GNS, RPG Theory, and Actual Play forums. It revealed a lot more than I was expecting; we've been kicking this issue around since nearly day one.

I was going to winnow through and find all the strongest discussions, especially those which provided link summaries to what had gone before, but this time ... well, I didn't. I invite anyone interested to do that for us.

The Forge search function is actually quite powerful if you specify the right things, especially a key poster's handle when applicable (not the case this time). It's old-school logic, not Google logic, but you can get good at it with practice.

As moderator, I now decree that the rest of us back off and let the thread relax until Dan (Shallow Thoughts) decides what to say and where to go with the topic. The exception is whoever feels like doing the search and research I mentioned, if anyone.

Best, Ron
edited to fix a dumb initial moderation - RE

[Daniel B]

Apparently this wasn't how the terminology wasn't originally intended but SIS suggests, to me, a space "created" when imaginations are shared among more than one person. Granted, if I'd been aware of the glossary first, I wouldn't have made the mistake, but am I wrong in thinking the term is quite misnomer-ish as it is?

If we're going to distinguish between my original interpretation and the concept of an imaginary space created only when each of the imaginations actively have a hand in deciding upon the content of that space or direction of the "story" (ie NOT movies or books, the "Forge-meaning"), then maybe we need a new term. Unfortunately this new term would still leave MMOGs lumped in with P&P's, because, technically, MMOGs involve more than one imagination deciding upon the content of the space and direction of the "story". For example, I construct a newly imagined character and he interacts with the imagined environment. Sometimes I can even build new objects for the space, such as potions or weapons. Granted, my imaginings are channelled within the rules of the game, but they're still products of my imagination. Just look at the names some people give their characters.

Dan

[soundmasterj]

Dan, I don´t think we need terminology talk in here at all. What I was saying was that HCDS doesn´t really work for P&P because in P&P, every action fundamentally depends on interaction with other players.

I´m greatly sorry for mostly changing this threads´ direction to "I call out people on their terminology use" and this is how I repent. I skimmed over half of the threads in the relevant forums containing the word MMORPG. Here are those I deem relevant:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14526.0
ADGBoss makes up a model somewhat close to HCDS. The (short) thread gets interesting when they point out how 1. MMORPGS don´t make for sharing credibility around; no SIS means no protagonism means no narr play! That seems to be the connection. 2. Exploring the non-SIS WoW world actually isn´t that different from exploring the Super Mario or Civilization world. Same goes for "gamist" MMORPG play in relation to other challenge-based solo video games.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12223.0
Followup thread to the above. Long. In the beginning mostly about SIS. In the end mostly is about pointing out the misconception that the computer has to be thought of as a player (no, he´s dice and books, not GM!).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12262.0
A thread asking for the difference between MMORPG and solo CRPG. What I found most interesting is how it reminds us that in most PC games we take on one single role. IIRC, what makes PC games "RPGs" is that you level up, ie., the avatar improves in itself, not through accidentia, thereby channeling character. So it looks completely coincidential but actually makes a lot of sense.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=5332.0
Thread about how holographics would influence play. Not much it seems. Rob Muad´dib points out how SIS works by sketching, while sight does not (the bottleneck isn´t pixels, but sketchiness of input).

[Callan S.]

Callan, I think you´re wrong. SIS is what makes games RPGs in the Big Model sense. I´m inclined to call Yathzee or some wargames gamist, but they got no SIS. So you may play D&D without it being a RPG (in the Big Model sense) at all! If I want to roll better than you because what it makes us both imagine, it´s an RPG (in BM sense), if I just want to roll better, it isn´t.
Also, SIS isn´t a technique, it is what techniques helps us do.

My question now is this. Is there narrativist play without SIS? Is the fact that I can´t think of any narr play without SIS a technical problem or an essential fact of SIS?

Okay, lets say were talking and I ask you to imagine a character, probably one that fits a medieval era, then describe his persona for a little while before we move on. Okay, I then say there's a sail boat at sea with its crew and passengers, on fire. And your character is on the second boat, which is perfectly safe. Now, with the ability to take some liberties of invention with what gear is around, what does your character do? (which can obviously include staying on the safe boat).

I would call this a thematic question/situation, suitable to narrativist play. I myself am actually really interested in characters you might think of! But it doesn't involve an SIS - just a bit of conversation and parlour narration.

Could you enjoy answering this question when there is no SIS? Even mildly enjoy - the question is slightly generic in how I wrote it, so perhaps not terribly punchy. Could you even mildly enjoy answering or does there have to be an SIS to enjoy it?

I think most people who want narrativism would find atleast some small amount of interest/enjoyment in answering it entirely outside of an SIS. If it is indeed true that they can enjoy it without an SIS, then the SIS isn't needed to have fun answering it. Gamism definately works in exactly the same way.

So that's some evidence towards the idea that narratavism doesn't need an SIS.

[Ron Edwards]

A little bit of aaaarrgh. Callan, my call is that the terms for each Creative Agenda were chosen to express how certain, specific human social urges were realized (in the sense of "brought about") in the medium of an SIS. Using those terms in that way, as proposed, isn't intended to imply that those urges don't exist otherwise or don't find expression otherwise.

I'm beginning to think this thread is turning into GNS 101 and isn't about its original topic at all. Dan (Sh.Th.) - is there any chance you can start a new thread about some actual role-playing that you've actually done, and we can use it as a starting point for discussing what is apparently the real topic - the basic meaning of "Creative Agenda." Maybe, this is what happened, and this is what I think is going on in Big Model terms, or perhaps, this is where I don't grasp how the Big Model makes sense of it.

On the other hand, if there is in fact a specific reason why you want to understand MMORPGs as such, then I have to say that the Big Model is about SIS-based role-playing and nothing else. There may be correspondences, areas of overlap, similarities in agenda, whatever, but if the correspondence is 0% or 100%, it's of no particular interest unless you really want to talk about MMORPGs. I'm sort of getting the idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't.

Best, Ron