Okay it is hard not to notice the recent surge of interest in CRPGs and thier history. While lots of us are talking about them I realized it would be nice to play some of them again. Patiucularly Ultima IV, I realized others might do the same. So I have a weblink for all of you

http://www.the-underdogs.org

this page has got so much stuff on it that it can make anyone smile. In paticular it has an extensive colleciton of text based games/ rougelike games/ultima iV and a buntch of links that lead to games that they don't have on thier web page. Within minuts you could be playing zork again. I've forgotten how bloody difficult thouse games were. So if you are really interesting in CRPG history then go expereince it first hand.

While others on here might say or know differently, I would nonetheless be rather cautious about giving out links like this, even to Underdogs, as some of their downloads *could* be considered 'pirated' or at least 'unofficial' ports, releases, cracks, etc.

That said, I'd like to speak my mind on crpgs, briefly. I personally (that means, just me) really only consider the earlier interactive fictions like Zork, true crpgs, because they were more transparently open-ended, there were no small set of maybe 10 options. You could waste two hours in the same 'room', doing nothing but fiddling with a well-described part of the room's 'wallpaper' that serves no actual purpose. The number of ways I attempted to find someway to grab Zork's rug and stuff it into my trophy case - I couldn't begin to count (but I'm a packrat).

Text adventures are much more like rpgs partially because of the expectant "okay, get ready... MAKE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE!" element. You start, it gives you a little background, and describes the room, and thats it. What on-screen buttons, links or items are there? Well, there's a blinking cursor that looks like this: >_ Thats pretty much it. You have to come to your own realization of how to get this blank line to work for you. Perform the right actions (of which you have only a standard list of 'common' things) on the right items, ask the right person the right question. There is no simple 'action' button and an obvious lever set into the wall, which gleams on and off so you see it. You may come back to this room 40 times before you figure out what's important in here - or there may be nothing at all.

I enjoyed both TSR's Pool of Radiance (the original) and Bard's Tale immensely, but I would never, even then, have referred to them as role-playing games, and still don't. They are very cut-and-dried hunt-and-seek-hack-and-slash-level-up games, just like King's Quest for that matter. Puzzle games, thinking games, even quests to retrieve the Whatzis - all fine and undeniably part of 'what rpgs are', yet things are more than the sum of their parts. I don't know WHAT these games are, I think its a valid medium, but they are NOT role-playing games, regardless of what TSR or anyone else says, as far as I am concerned.

With crpgs, (newer first person, 3-d expansive maps, etc) the appearance of open-ended choices greatly expands their 'nearness' to rpgs, but they have very definite and concrete limits. Basically, the interaction level is nil, with other characters, except for the prescripted routines to follow the plot, or a few red herrings. The things all these games, including interactive fiction, shares, are very definite, finite 'edges'. You go so far on a map and you hit a wall, sometimes just a black boundary which is supposed to signify 'Ehhh, you don't need to go any further that way...' but of course, really says 'Well, we couldn't recreate the ENTIRE world for you, so this is your boundary'. Which is fine, but this is exactly where rpgs zoom ahead, when players decide, "Well, this sucks... okay, I guess I'll see how sturdy the ceiling is." in an obvious precursor to some sort of clever acitivty to simply go 'through' a level of the game, probably unexpectedly, but which could very well be successful. Or the player may decide this is a PERFECT place to make his camp, maybe even settle here and found a town, right at this impassible null zone, since his back is unquestionably NOT open to attack, from this one wall, etc.

CRPGs present a player with something and either obviously or inobviously, there are about 2-4 things they can do, or are required to do - providing these things don't work immediately, and the challenge yet exists, it either is a challenge which requires more components, or is NOT a challenge at all, just a bit of scenery. A referee may have players going for days on what he knows is a total waste of time, or he may decide this maybe ISN'T a waste of time after all, if the players come up with an entertaining or surprisingly clever enough plan - then poof, their work went toward something after all.

Lastly, and some might say, most importantly, rpgs only indirectly rely on 'previous life experience', in which you know what to do and what not to do because you 'died last time'. In role-playing games, the PLAYER, metagame, relies on 'previous knowledge' by knowing (some would say *wrongly*) that his NEXT character that encounters a troll will BURN the troll after you 'kill' it. There is no avoiding that after a time, most players will know the ins and outs and secrets and tricks of most monsters, devices and other challenges - but its not from continuously jumping into flaming pits to see if you can reach that ledge on the other side.

In crpgs, every time you try to jump across that pit, you die. Over and over. This tells you, for this next life, the pit is NOT the answer, and off you go somewhere else. In an rpg, the pit may or may not be the answer, if you try to jump it, and fail, your character may very well bite the dust. You don't start over right here like usual - you might rejoin the party who have hopefully moved past this obstacle already, or you might have to wait until the session is ended - you do not lightly take risks in most rpgs that you take in computer/console games because, while character death isn't 'final' in the broad sense, for that character and his accomplishments and items, it is. You can never get the +9 Hillcleaver sword that you got two realtime years ago, nor the painting of the Thief wearing a wig, that the artisan drew for you. The inherent incarnation-specific finality of character death is something that no crpg can emulate because you can strip either rpg or crpg characters to outfit other characters, but never again will Johny Bravolo yell his trademark phrase before charging the goblins, or practice needelpoint much to the amusement of the other characters. When an rpg character dies, a little bit of the craetivity, the time and effort that brought that character to LIFE, a tiny, donated bit of the PLAYER, dies as well. In crpgs, you just respawn and run back to grab the plasma rifle.

Dr. Velocity wrote: Text adventures are much more like rpgs partially because of the expectant "okay, get ready... MAKE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE!" element. You start, it gives you a little background, and describes the room, and thats it. What on-screen buttons, links or items are there? Well, there's a blinking cursor that looks like this: >_ Thats pretty much it. You have to come to your own realization of how to get this blank line to work for you. Perform the right actions (of which you have only a standard list of 'common' things) on the right items, ask the right person the right question. There is no simple 'action' button and an obvious lever set into the wall, which gleams on and off so you see it. You may come back to this room 40 times before you figure out what's important in here - or there may be nothing at all.

I enjoyed both TSR's Pool of Radiance (the original) and Bard's Tale immensely, but I would never, even then, have referred to them as role-playing games, and still don't. They are very cut-and-dried hunt-and-seek-hack-and-slash-level-up games, just like King's Quest for that matter. Puzzle games, thinking games, even quests to retrieve the Whatzis - all fine and undeniably part of 'what rpgs are', yet things are more than the sum of their parts. I don't know WHAT these games are, I think its a valid medium, but they are NOT role-playing games, regardless of what TSR or anyone else says, as far as I am concerned.

Am I the only one who applies the term RPG in entirely different manners to video games and table-top roleplaying?

For me, a video game RPG is any game with a persistent character, with stats and abilities which improve, which improvement effects your overall capability and effectiveness, and in which there is some sort of advancing storyline. Admittedly this definition could be stretched to fit any number of games that I would not call RPGs, but I could probably rebut most of them. So to me, Final Fantasy, Ultima, yes, even Diablo are Video Game RPGs. I wouldn't ormally call them that, except that they've managed to create their own niche which really doesn't fit well into any other category.

Tabletop RPGs are an entirely different beast, though. They can be run in much the same manner as Comte describes, Diablo without the pretty graphics and with a few more options for solving problems, or they can be run in a completely narrativist style. Style, personal preference, flexibility is the name of the game. Each session may feature entirely different actions, and each playgroup may feature vastly different styles. This is the key difference in Video Game RPGs and Table-top RPGs, in my opinion.

Am I the only one who applies the term RPG in entirely different manners to video games and table-top roleplaying?

I have to disagree entirelly. CRPGs and P&P RPGs are equally RPGs in my mind. To me, the concept of a CRPG is the ultimate testimony to Ron's System does matter essay.

I have to disagree entirelly. CRPGs and P&P RPGs are equally RPGs in my mind. To me, the concept of a CRPG is the ultimate testimony to Ron's System does matter essay.

Uh... I'm sorry. I didn't think that anyone would read that much into a statement that I would make. But here's a simple (if inadequate) explanation.

I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely disagree.

"Whoa," you might say, "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks." OK, fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. (Recall here I'm talking about system, not source or story content material.) I'm suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't waste Herbie's time.

"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely disagree.

Hmm I would actualy agruge the opposite, the system of a CRPG dose not matter. When the human element is removed from the game system then it can become as complicated as you please, the computer is doing all the crunchy bits, all you need to do is to shoot the gun. So the computer game could use whatever system it wants and you would heardly notice because it all goes on behind the scenes.

Fallout 2 for example (my favorite example) is based off the gurps system. Because of the computer interface actionpoints are easy to comprehend and are actualy very user freindly. All the modifyers that a game master would normaly have to take into acount are handled instantly, sometimes to the chagrin of the player. I mean no game master remebers to include every modifyer every time...unlike fallout 2.

CRPG's know the limits of thier capabilities, but it is more of a restriction that is presented by the media (ie computer) and not the system itself. The system is irrelevent because it is all handled for you. It would be like not playing Neverwinter Nights because you don't like D20. But you don't have to deal with the system you just have to click on the bad guy and bad stuff happens to them. Unless you are a bard and then you die. The same with Baulder's Gate, people all over play and love that game but can't stand D&D second edition.

A CRPG is one of the places where Ron's argument is rendered nil because the system dosn't matter. The computer will handle the system for you and the limitation of the medium in which the game is presented is such that there is only so much it can do anyway. Wow that came out kinda like an essay. I do to much school work.

Ah. Now, I think the case can be made that CRPG's validate 'System Does Matter' on the basis that a CRPG is a functional game that consists entirely of system. There simply is no human player to drfit the game or drop rules.

That said, arguably using walkthrus's with no intent of engaging with the puzzles is drifting from Gamist to Sim.

Man we need to do something with these RPG threads cause there is like 5 of them now and I can only keep up with this one.

Hmm I had though of takling the argument from the Sim point of veiw. Still I would maintain that system dosn't matter. Look at Baulder's Gate and Fallout 2 and Arcanum. Three games that use very diffrent systems from one another, and yet they all play exactly the same way. I think in a diffrent thread it is quickly becoming agreed that Narativism is impossilbbe in a CRPG. However, I think a CRPG could portentialy please the Gamist/Sim people while having enough options to make the naratvists happy. Now I am only talking about the CRPGs like baulder's gate and Fallout. This excludes diablo and its rougelike predecesors and all MUD type games.

Of course system matters for CRPGs. I tried to run Baldur's Gate on my Amiga and it didn't work at all.

Okay, that was a dumb joke. But it points toward a valid point: when discussing generalities about system such as whether it matters or not, you have to be careful where you draw the boundaries of what "system" entails. There's more to system than what players have to do to resolve the results of an action (which, as Comte explained, is nothing at all for CRPG systems regardless of the number of variables they take into account). Here are just a few of the aspects of system that might matter to a CRPG player:

- How much does the ability to explore the game world depend on character advancement? How much on puzzle solving? How much on exhaustive searching? How much on luck (e.g. finding a treasure item that's delivered randomly, that's essential for survival in another area)?

- Does the player's access to new areas (whether gained by advancement or other means) keep pace with the player's desire to explore new areas, or does the game force the player to repeat actions and episodes (possibly to the point of mechanical perfection) in order to move on?

- How wide a variety of viable tactical options does the game offer a player? (Options that are offered, but are never beneficial to use because their cost to benefit ratios are lower than other available options, don't count.)

- What is the cost of mistakes? How heavily does the game punish boldness and risk-taking? When many player-hours of character advancement are constantly at risk of being lost, even if the risk is relatively low, a cautious and patient player will always fare better in the long run than a daring one. (I've yet to see a CRPG that actually rewards daring and risk-taking, although players often drift CRPGs in that direction by adopting the "save before every move and restore from save after every setback" approach.)

- How much micromanagement of characters' state is necessary? Does the character need to eat periodically to avoid effects of hunger? If so, does eating a meal require (in separate steps) putting down the character's weapon, putting down the character's shield, taking off the backpack, opening the backpack, taking out a food item, eating the food item, closing the backpack, putting on the backpack, picking up the shield, and picking up the weapon? (Sounds absurd? I've played a CRPG that required at least those steps -- and many more, if the hungry character happened to be the one carrying the torch.)

- How explicitly does the game present a character's state? Does it tell you that an attack just did 23 hit points of damage, and the character has 7 left? Or does it say the character suffered a "devastating blow" leaving him "in bad shape"?

- How believable are the NPCs? Computer NPCs don't have to be intelligent to be believable (which is fortunate, because it's impossible to make them intelligent), but it helps a lot if they exhibit perception, emotion, and memory. Perception means that if a player-character does something in their presence (like kill someone), they notice and react to it; emotion means their reaction exhibits emotion (like fear or anger) over what the player-characters do; memory means that if the same NPC is encountered again a day later, his reaction still takes into account what he saw you do yesterday.

- Walt

I'll disagree with your argument Comte, because not all system is transparent. I've always been a big fan of the FF series, and my favorite (that I've played.. lost interest in the newest games, post-FF8) is still number 6. A lot of that is the story, to be true, but it's also the system. Each character has certain abilities, which combine to make effective groups. The esper system of learning magic is good. The Action Time system gives some sense of the immediacy of battle... you can't just take forever to act, or else the enemy will continue to hit you. Then you go to FF7, with it's gems and such. About the only special ability that the characters have are their limit breaks, and a few who can cast magic without the proper gems.

System Does Matter!

At the System Matters level, I'd put forward that all computer games have the exact same system. How do we decide what's true in the game world? Answer: the computer tells us.

The mechanics of crpgs vary widely, of course, that's what Walt and Lance are talking about, and Mechanics Matter too. But as long as computers aren't like people, the process of coming to a consensus about what happens will always be different, fundamentally, from the process of receiving what happens from a computer.

I don't want to derail the convo; you can consider this just a minor terminological quibble if you'd like.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: At the System Matters level, I'd put forward that all computer games have the exact same system. How do we decide what's true in the game world? Answer: the computer tells us.
....
I don't want to derail the convo; you can consider this just a minor terminological quibble if you'd like.

Considering that, as I understood it, mechanics are just a sub-section of system, I think the point is equally valid. I'll also say that the specific points that I talk about are more a matter of interface than pure mechanics, which I view as the actual particulars of how dice are rolled, and how "interaction" is measured and handled. The dice mechanics are mostly transparent, as we rarely ever see anything more than the effect of the action (usually in the form of damage dealt, healed, etc.) but the interface is extremely visible; How you get new abilities, how you put those abilities into effect, and what the result is are all very important in how a given game is taken by an individual.

Either way, I think we're on the same side of the issue. System/Mechanics does indeed matter.

lumpley wrote: At the System Matters level, I'd put forward that all computer games have the exact same system. How do we decide what's true in the game world? Answer: the computer tells us.

The mechanics of crpgs vary widely, of course, that's what Walt and Lance are talking about, and Mechanics Matter too. But as long as computers aren't like people, the process of coming to a consensus about what happens will always be different, fundamentally, from the process of receiving what happens from a computer.

I think applying SDM to CRPG's has some difficultys that Vincent and John illustrate.

I'm hard pressed to indicate a GNS decision making mode in CRPG's as the N-option is (IMO) limited (not *missing*--there is an Ultima where the character is attacked by children icons--a player could decided to to use a less-lethal combat mode and declare himself to be knocking them out)--but the "story" is, well, pretty hard-coded ... and while the concept of railroading, again, *does* exist--it's, IMO, very much different than a table-top RPG.

I'd find it to be, mostly, "G" (and the closer the game gets to a story-like end condition, the more strongly G it is ... the more open ended a game is, the more it might be exploration just to "see what's out there."

And for most of the games I think we're talking about the whole social contract element is missing ... which I think, makes it even murkier to analyze that way.

Finally, as I've often held here, words (even beyond 'story') taken from literature are a tricky deal with RPGs, I think they become even trickier when you get to the CRPG (RPG's can be said to have "story" and the character's avatar can be said to be the "protagonist" but that's wildly divergent from literary meanings and, IMO, divergent from RPG's translations of those words as well).

But the question of System Does Matter vs. Mechanics Matter is pretty telling.

I suggest, that in common conversation, System *does* mean Mechanics.

A very convincing case can be made that System = Mechanics + Setting + 'how to play notes' + C (the Constant Of ... anything I forgot ...)

But if SDM is/was written as a rebuttal to people saying "Mechanics Don't Matter"* (which is close to what I think most people mean if they say 'System Doesn't Matter')--and maybe I'm wrong about the genesis of the article or a major factor of it's usage--but this does come from a recent discussion on RPGnet with Ron and Ralph ... then making the distinction would be an important one.

It's true that all the games have different mechanics.

It's also true that a Computer is always telling you what's real (but a human is telling you what's real ... usually ... I've had the cat GM, but the games were always weird).

So, I happen to:

Agree with John--the variance of engine in each game will make a difference.

Agree with Vincent--the way that SDM is usually invoked here, for the computer games I've seen--the GNS mode of play is very similar.

-Marco
* and what people really mean with System Doesn't Matter, I think, is not "I can't tell the difference between systems" (i.e. that there is litteraly no difference) but "I can have fun with any system" or better: "In my experience I've not found a system I couldn't have the same degree of fun with." A lie detector probably wouldn't flicker for either of these (i.e. their statement is self-referential and therefore "true.")

John Kim wrote: They are definitely different from tabletop RPGs, but they have a fair amount of art and sophistication to them without simply being the computer telling you a story.

John,

Getting to choose your character's actions, yes, both tabletop and computer games give you.

In tabletop games, though, the GM or whoever's talking is absolutely required to get your buy-in before what she says is true. This goes far, far beyond your character's actions; I'm talking about the weather, the actions of NPCs, subtleties of outcome, everything. Since the game's events happen in your imagination, over which you individually have absolute control, tabletop roleplaying is negotiated.

A computer has a whole different relationship to the in-game. The game's events don't happen in your imagination, they happen in the computer's, if you will. The computer doesn't have to get your buy-in; the computer's word is law and final. There is no way for you to negotiate. (I'll read Emily Short's essays as soon as I get the chance, though. I may be talking out my butt.)

Some gaming styles idealize the GM's word as final, but that doesn't make it so. The I-Am-God GM will still change the tone of his narration if you scowl, will still make eye contact and use body language to get you to go along with him. And sometimes one player misunderstands and gets a critical detail out of whack with the rest of the group, so, like everybody, they negotiate. Computers just can't do that yet.

That's the difference in principle.

-Vincent

There's a sense in which the imagined events of a crpg are consensual. You need to imagine that the scenery is actually 3d, that the AI responses can be grouped to individual characters, that the pictures on the screen actually make some sense, rather than being mere side effects of a bunch of data processing.

If the crp messes with this acceptance too much - bad graphics, erratic AI, crashing alot (i.e. interrupting the story without good reason) then the player with withdraw that consent. They'll stop playing.

It's not that there's no concent - offer and acceptance - it's that the "negotiations" are gross, the range of options are limited.