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

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

Chris

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

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

Chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

Chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MarK.

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

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

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

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

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

herrmess wrote: ...SIS should be somehow "shared" with real people, in real time, in a direct two-way interaction. Which MMORPGs give you (or at least provide you with the semblance of).

herrmess wrote: ...the other necessary part of the SIS is that it should be imagined (as contrary to "imaginary"). Modern multiplayer games are detailed and choke-full with high-res graphics and sound effects, and there is nothing in the game that's not visually shown (and vice versa). There is no imagined content, nothing to visualize. This makes me, the player, an instrument of perception, not imagination.

James and Eric,

Using your argument this way I could comfortably claim that intravenous feeding is eating, and that a movie is a book ;-)

I understand this is tongue-in-cheek, and since I may have come off too rigid, this reductio ad absurdum has its place... but. This is ultimately a question of boundaries. Moving away from the table-top RPG on all its diverse implementations and various mutations, someplace, somewhere, for me an activity ceases to be defined as RPG. Sure, it shares some common elements (among which are setting/genre, social interaction, and controlling a character) with an RPG. But the criteria for me are tied more strongly to the SIS than to any component of the game space. Maybe the criteria will change, the definitions will shift, the boundaries will widen or contract, and so a CRPG/MMORPG will become a de facto implementation/mutation of an RPG. But I don't see it as the situation right now.

Those boundaries I have set myself, across the domains of "shared" and "imagined". These two interact and intertwine constantly in an RPG. Sharing only is watching a movie together or talking about the weather. Imagining only is daydreaming or writing fiction for yourself. When they feed into each other in a certain way, they create the basis for the social interaction called a roleplaying game. In a modern CRPG/MMORPG one of them is missing or stunted to such an extent that I don't see how they can meet the criteria at all. Why these games possess the "RPG" descriptor is a point I think I've partially answered in my previous post.



Chris,

You can safely scrap the "real time" bit. I take it back and swallow it whole. Thus, an epistolary RPG is entirely possible since the sharing does not have to take place simultaneosly. It's also possible to go out to take a leak in the middle of a table-top session without compromising the SIS ;-)

As for the issue of visualization, it's a tricky one and has to do a lot with the function of such a method and the effect it produces. The visual stimulus does not, in itself, detract from the SIS, but its form, content and use may. If the photographs/drawings leave room for interpretation, if somehow the game space that they created has to be "filled in" by the players' imaginations, then I don't have a problem with your example at all. If those visual bits exist not as an aid and a catalyst for a creative imaginative process, but serve solely to suppress or supplant it (or at best ignore it as a factor of the game and thus don't facilitate it), then the "I" part of the SIS is gone. This is the situation with the MMORPGs of today, MUSHes excluded. Now, I find it hard to think of a computer-aided RPG that produces such effects instead of just digesting and spoon-feeding set audio-visual information to the players. I do not rule out the possibility, I just find it difficult to imagine how such a game will look like (pardon the pun).



This discussion got me thinking about LARPs, though. The visual experience of a LARP is totally perceptive, so there's nothing to be imagined, right? Well, not really. You still have to transform, in your mind's eye, the guy dressed up in rags with paint on his face and a plastic stick in his hand screaming at you into a "real" orc charging at you with his war-axe yelling an orcish battle-cry. You still have to imagine you're not in some suburban park but in an elven forest. And most important, in a LARP you also have to imagine actually being someone else. So even if you get the visual part nearly totally "right" (say, LARPing with a few dozen New-Zealander reserve troops with a ton of makeup), you still have to flex your imagination. However I believe pursuing this will take me beyond this thread, so here I stop.


MarK.

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

We have to watch rhetoric like Comte's. That is, as long as we realize that "killing things and taking their stuff is a form of roleplaying in terms of defining what an RPG is, we're fine. His use means something like "playing in the first person." Which is a common definition, but has nothing to do, as it happens, with the overall definition of RPGs. That is, there are games where nobody is expected to ever act the part of their character that still firmly fall into the realm of RPG.

Anyhow, I think the point is, that, yeah, it's a medium. But the medium is the message, no? To put it better, the medium tends to affect what people do with it. Since Runescape facilitates "killing things and taking their stuff" well, that's what people tend to do with it. This is nothing more than "System Does Matter." That is, yes, the medium is part of how things get transfered into the SIS. The specific forms of noise and transmission eases of the medium are what translate into play predilections.

Mike

Comte wrote: It is more productive, in my opinion, to see MMRPGs as a medium for a productive RP expeience.

To help clarify consider this example: I buy certain roleplaying books because I like to read them. I don't really have any intension of playing most of them, I just find them entertaining to read.

Heya,

Im pretty experienced in playing MMORPGs or at least the big one: EverQuest. To me, it seems like it is a Hard Core Gamist RPG with an electronic interface. Each time there is a major raid (anywhere from 24 to 150 people involved) there are all kinds of chances to Step On Up. Sometimes even in groups, if the situation gets hairy, there are chances. But the game is SO built around hack-n-slash that players result to stealing kills, robbing treasure, using the environment (lots of hostile creatures) to kill off competitors just to swoop in and kill something for the loot that it can devolve quickly into dysfunctional play.

Peace,

-Troy Costisick

Very good ideas all around. I think that the core to all of this lies in two neigh-unanswerable questions:

What is SIS?
and
What is a roleplaying game?

Since I doubt that we can get everyone to agree on either, never mind most, I'll try to make my argument by connecting compromises.

We'd call D&D a roleplaying game, right?

The basic idea was that a bunch of ner- I mean intellectuals, gathered around in a group and would take on different roles in a purly imagined world.

Now how the hell are we going to define an imagined world? What is it... a place that existed without a frame of refference? Well, we all have a frame of refference, whether it be memory or smell or whatever. The only difference is that we treat the world that we live in as something that truly exists instead of something that acts as a frame of reffernece for different people.

Alright. That paragraph doesn't make any sense. Let me try again.

If fantasy is anything of imagination then:
Since the basis for the classic RPG is 'fantasy' we can't define it without clarifying the difference between 'fantasy' and 'reality'.

Well, I think I'll try to clarify what that meant in further posts. I currently have a headache.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Empyrealmortal