Ron Edwards said:

Then again, perhaps my surprise is a matter of my own subcultural limitations, if related hobbies are considered. Gamism remained alive and well among computer games like Rogue, Nethack, Ultima library (later to become Ultima Online), Zork, Advent(ure), MUDs, MUSHes, MOOs, Everquest, Amethyst, and many more. Unfortunately, I'm an ignoramus about this entire hobby, and any insights into its history, play preferences, economics, and what-all would be very welcome at the Forge.

--Having heard the call, I now provide what insights I can, starting with the early history (80s) and continuing into the mid-90s.

--Early History:

Solo RPGs began with the Ultima lineage (starting with Akalabeth), the Wizardry lineage, the Rogue lineage, and the Adventure/Zork lineage. Ultima and Wizardry are essentially adaptations of Dungeons and Dragons, with the key difference being that Ultima used an overhead tile-graphics engine (except in dungeons, where a first-person perpective was used), and the Wizardry lineage used first-person views exclusively.

--The Ultima lineage:

The Ultima series was memorable for its undocumented features. For example, when talking to a guard, you could type, "Bribe" and the game would ask you "How much?" If you gave enough gold, the guard would let you pass. There were also unlisted items. For example, in Ultima III, you were presented with 3 options at a shop: "A," "B," and "C." If you typed "D," you could buy a black market item, the sextant, which allowed you to determine you position anywhere in the world, even at sea where there were no landmarks.

There were also hidden cities and hidden areas, accessible by taking a sailing ship through a whirlpool, beginning in Ultima IV. There were also hidden vehicles (the balloon in Ultima IV, which allowed you to fly over land and sea, provided the wind was right) and hidden items (like the ultimate weapons and armor of Ultima IV -- mystic robes and mystic swords -- as well as the glass sword of Ultima V, which killed practically anything with one strike, but broke immediately afterwards.) Beginning in Ultima V, there were also tons of hidden items hidden in people's houses and whatnot, which could be found using the search command.

Other things were also hidden, like the proper spell components for the most powerful spells in Ultima IV, the proper mantras to use at the shrines of virtue in Ultima IV (essential for improving one's virtue and winning the game) as well as unique items like the the spyglass in Ultima V, which allowed you to see the sky at night and see where the game's ultimate villians, the Shadowlords were, so you could avoid them.

Even characters were hidden. In Ultima IV, you could talk to a certain fire. There was also a city almost entirely populated by monsters, who you could talk to...if you thought not to fight them.

However, in the Ultima series, most items were buyable, even some very powerful ones, like the magic axe, which allowed you to make powerful ranged attacks. The problem was, you had to had enough money. The magic axe, for example, cost 3500 gold pieces -- a lot in a game where the maximum amount of gold you could carry was 9999.

The Ultima series was also the first to use spell components, beginning in Ultima IV. Each spell required two or more reagents (ingredients) which had to be mixed in proper proportions. Failure resulted in a number of bad things, such as a poison cloud that poisoned a number of party members.

Although most reagents could be bought in stores, two (nightshade and mandrake) had to be found. To do this, you had to talk to NPCs and find one who knew where to find the reagent. Then you had to go to the right spot and search for it using the search command. For example, nightshade could only be found in a certain location in a certain swamp when both of the game's moons went dark.

Ultima was also known for its simplicity. Ultima IV had only three stats for each character: Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence. Gold, torches (for light in dungeons), food, weapons, and armor were carried by the whole group and not by any single character.

Finally, Ultima was best known for its simulation of a whole world. Indeed, the early slogan of Origin, the producers of the Ultima series was "We create worlds." By Ultima V, night followed day, people went to work, fountains rushed, etc. You could even spot trap doors and secret doors by the extra pixels that were added to them, which differentiated them from normal floors and walls. The effect was so engrossing, that when I betrayed an NPC to the corrupt authorities in Ultima V, I sailed back across half the world to see if that NPC was alright. (He was.)

Of all the "old-school" CRPGS, Ultima IV is considered the high-water mark. Why? It added a deep moral convention to the game. To the player, it seemed like every action, every choice they made had an impact on how the game treated you. This started right from the beginning with character generation. In it, a gypsy presented you with several moral dillemas, each depicted in a pair of tarot-like cards. Depending on how you solved the dilemmas, you would be given a class. This class would be an emobodiment of the virtue you displayed in your choices. For example, you held Honor to be the greatest virtue when you solved the dilemmas, you would begin the game as a 3rd level Paladin in the city which represent the virtue of Honor. Picked Love as the greatest virtue? You'd start as a Bard in another city which represented Love. And so on.

Furthermore, the actions you took during the game all influenced your virtues. I found myself retreating from combat a lot as I played Ultima IV initally. Consquently, I was told by the NPC sage Hawkwind that my Valor was low. After I stopped retreating from combat so much, is was told my Valor had increased. Had I continued being cowardly, it was entirely possible that I could have "lost" the game.

You see, the goal of Ultima IV was not to kill a monster, but to become a paragon of the virtues -- an Avatar. Thus the game was subtitled, "Quest of the Avatar." If you were too deficient in the virtues (or if you used the black magic of the Skull of Mondain, an artifact that you had to destroy in-game, too much) you could NEVER become an Avatar. You'd have to start over from the beginning by starting a new game.

Even after the game, the virtues took ahold of you in much the same way Star War's Force did its fans. It was something that imprinted itself on your mind forever.

--Wizardry lineage:

The most infamous feature of the Wizardry lineage was the "Identify-9" cheat. In Wizardry I, if you created a Bishop class character, he could identify items. There were 8 slots worth of items a character could carry. If a Bishop tried to identify an item in slot 9, he was rewarded with a MASSIVE amount of experience. And I mean massive. It took so long to spend all that exp on leveling by resting at the "inn" (really just a game feature and not a place on the first-person map) that many gamers gave up before running out of experience, or hired someone the advance their Bishop for them.

And because you could change classes, your Bishop, with all the massive hit points he got as a result of leveling, could carry those hit points into another class. He even got to keep some of his spell-casting abilities (which were based on the 1st edition AD&D rules -- only so many spells per spell level, determined by character level. Switching classes reduced the amount of spells you got per level.)

Furthermore, because you could repeat the identify-9 trick every time the Bishop lost a level, and since you could lose one level just by casting a certain, very powerful spell, you had in theory an unlimited amount of experience at you disposal.

The Wizardry lineage was the first game ANYWHERE (including mainstream rpgs) to have prestige classes. In Wizardry I, these were the Bishop (Mage+Cleric), the Ninja (Thief with critical hit ability), Lord (Figher+Cleric), and Samurai (Fighter+Mage.)

Wizardry was also the first game to make alignment important. Good and evil characters could not adventure together in the same party. Since some classes were restricted to certain alignments (notably, Lords had to be good, while Ninjas had to be evil) this made for some interesting choices.

The Wizardry lineage was the first to allow you to port characters from game to game. Although this option would be followed in later games, they usually did not allow you to transfer characters at full power as the Wizardry series originally did.

The Wizardry lineage is also known for its wackiness. In Wizardry I, monsters included the Vorpal Bunny from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", as well as monsters like the fire-breathing Dragonfly.

The Wizardry lineage was also the first to feature non-mainstream races, beginning in Wizardry 7, with races like the dragon-like Dracon, and the hard to hit, magically powerful Fairies. (I may have gotten the names wrong, but you get the idea.)

Finally, the Wizardry series was the first to allow you to play a villain, as the villain from Wizardry I reappeared in Wizardry 4, "Werdna's Revenge."

--Rogue lineage:

The Rogue lineage was best known for two things: A tile-based graphic sysem which used regular character keys (for example -, {, * and so on) and the amazing variety of monsters and monster powers.

For monsters, you wouldn't just have, say, a vampire. There'd be regular vampires, vampire lords, and vampire kings. The same was true of other monsters -- there were several varieties of each.

There was an amazing variety of different powers monsters could have. They could split into two, shift your stats around, walk through walls, and more things which I can't remember.

The worst of all monsters in the Rogue lineage was NetHack's Medusa. If you could see her (that is, if the room was lighted and your eyes were not covered) you turned to stone. No save. Poof! You're dead.

The end result of the Rogue lineage was to kill the Balrog, while that of Nethack to rescue the amulet of Yendor from an evil wizard.

The Rogue games themselves were relatively restricted in strategy. Go into the dungeon Moria, kill things, come back alive and sell what you found, except for the really good stuff, which you keep. There were some stratgies, like "farming" pudding and other duplicating monsters in order to gain experience and treasure.

The evolution of the Rogue lineage into the NetHack series produced an amazing variety of strategies. You could scrawl writing with wands on the wall to see what kind of wand it was. If it was a wand of wishing, you could wish for items, up to and including powerful items like Stormbringer and thor's hammer Mjolnir. Or you could wish for a statue that turned into a pet monster (the favorite being the powerful Archon.) You could try to get nurses (a kind of monster) to slap you an increase your hit points permanently. You could turn into a monster if you had the proper combination of rings, which resulted in a major power-up. If you turned into a rust monster, you could eat magical items and sometimes gain their powers. You could read a cursed scroll of genocide to bring you some powerful monsters to fight. You could sacrifice corpses on a shrine to your god, which increased your standing with the god, sometimes resulting in bonuses. If you prayed too much, the god would become angry and smite you. You could try to steal items from the shops you found in the dungeon. And on and on.

--Zork and King's Quest lineage:

The Zork lineage was basically an outgrowth of storytelling. No classes, no levels, no skills, usually no spells (although some games had you play a spellcaster), just pure problem-solving. The same type of adventure was later given a graphics engine in the King's Quest lineage.

The annoying thing about the "text adventure" or "graphics adventure" as the Zork and King's Quest lineages were called, was although there were often 2 or 3 ways to solve a puzzle, you simply couldn't do some common-sense things. For example, there was a room in Zork I which was so loud, you couldn't do anything there. To fix that, you HAD to empty the nearby reservoir, as the noise was coming from water flowing through the dam. You could not, for example, cut the bag you had into scraps and plug the scraps into your ears to block the noise.

Another example was in King's Quest I. Early on in the game, a cat blocked the stairs to the attic. You had to kick the cat. You couldn't kill it. If you tried, the game replied, "You can't kill the cat." No reason was given, you just plain couldn't do it.

--Later History:

Later key players included the Bard's Tale lineage (including Dragon Wars), the Might and Magic lineage, and the SSI "Gold Box" series of AD&D adventures.

--Bard's Tale lineage:

The Bard's tale lineage is best known for its emphasis on hack and slash, its high quality graphics and music, and its extreme use of prestige classes. It also introduced summoned monsters as party members.

In Bard's Tale, like most other games of its day, the focus was on fighting. Unfortunately, this was sometimes carried to the extreme, notably in Bard's Tale I, where there was a certain spot where you encounterd 4 groups of 99 Berserkers (a kind of monster.) These berserkers posed no threat to the party, and were really just a source of free experience. You would enter the area, teleport to the spot, cast the proper offensive spells, and walk out with experience. Then you'd leave, maybe recover a bit, and repeat the whole thing ad nauseum.

Bard's Tale was used first-person graphics like Wizardry did, supplemented by spot animation for its monster pictures. However, it also represented what spells were active on the party by use of graphics. These included light, levitation, magical armor, and secret door detection. It was also one of the first games to use music, as the Bard class could play a number of magical songs out of combat as well as during combat to help the party. After a number of songs equal to his level, the bard had to drink, either at an inn, or from a wineskin.

Bard's Tale also used a number of prestige classes, mainly for spellcasters. You could start a character out as a Magician or Conjurer. After that, you could switch to a prestige class (but most people elected to take the other non-prestige spellcasting class, ie, Conjurer or Magician.) The prestige classes included Sorceror, Wizard, and in Bard's Tale II, Archmage. In Bard's Tale III, fighting classes such as the Fighter, Paladin and Monk had access to the prestige class Geomancers, who were powerful spellcasters with some fighting skills.

Bard's Tale also introduced summon monsters as party members. These ranged from the non-combative Target monster (which didn't fight, but just acted as another target), through humorous monsters like Joe the Sword (summoned by the Dancing Sword spell), to the Kringle Brothers, powerful fire-breathing monsters which filled all the empty spots in your party (that is, up to 6.)

Finally, Bard's Tale 3 was the first game (outside the Zork and King's Quest lineage) to use spells to solve puzzles. You'd see writing before a barrier like, "Lift the veil, then counter it" and figure out you'd have to cast Levitate, then an anti-magic spell, and so on.

--Might and Magic lineage:

The Might and Magic lineage was the first to have the "rest" command. PCs could rest between fights, regaining ALL their hit points and spell points. Of course, some areas were too dangerous to rest in, and these areas were rightly feared by the player.

Might and Magic was also well known for its amazing variety of "power-ups." There were magic fountains which gave PCs bonuses (sometimes massive ones), but only for one combat. That is, you would drink from the fountain, go fight, and then your bonuses would disappear.

Might and Magic shops and cities were also groundbreaking. You would start in the least dangerous, but least rewarding city. As you adventured, you would find other, more dangerous cities. The more dangerous the city, the more powerful the items you could buy at its shops. Beginning in Might and Magic II, shops would also have special days on which they sold increasingly powerful items. For example, on day 180 of the 180-calendar of Might and Magic II, you could find items like a +32 naginata (the maximum findable in the game through any means being +63.)

Might and Magic also had a simple economy compared to other games. Whereas in Ultima IV, there were approximately 6 or 8 reagents required for spells, the Might and Magic series had only one component, gems. Gems could be found all over the damn place, often as a reward for actions. For example, helping a corpse in Might and Magic I netted you a reward of 20 gems from the thankful (undead) corpse.

Might and Magic spells were notable for their incredible variety. In addition to the healing and blasting spells found in other games, their were also spells that gave "conditions" (like the dreaded disintegrate spell, which "eradicated" a target), spells that removed "conditions" (like cure posion), and spells that did unique things. One of my favorites was Moon Ray, which hit the opposition for 1-100 hit points before resistences being taken into account, but ALSO healed the entire party for 1-100 hit points. Another one of my favorites for sheer coolness was Prisimatic Ray, which blasted the opposition with various damage types and tried to give them various conditions. So, in one cast, you might poison one target, turn another to stone, burn yet another target, and so on.

Might and Magic monsters also had a number of special abilities. Some of these had precedent in table-top games (regeneration); others like the dreaded "steal backpack ability", which took away all the items a character had stored in his backpack, had none.

Beginning in Might and Magic II, the amount of spells you could learn simply through gaining levels was limited. Special spells had to be found, often in dangerous places. For example, the "Enchant an Item" spell was found in a forge in the middle of a raging volcano, which required party members to all have massive fire resistance to enter it without dying.

The Might and Magic series also had a vast selection of items. I finished the first game seeing only about 1/2 to 2/3 of all the items in the game.

These items were usually found in boxes or chest that were left by defeated monsters, although items could be found on their own, and boxes/chest could be found on their own. The neat thing was that there were increasingly dangerous and rewarding boxes. I remember the first time my party found a Black Box in Might and Magic I. I went, "What the hell is that?"

Finally, the Might and Magic series had the largest world seen in that era. The outdoor world was composed of 20 "areas", each roughly equal to one dungeon level in the Wizardry series.

--SSI "Gold Box" series

The "Gold Box" series was an adaption of AD&D rules to the CRPG world. It was notable for that fact and that fact alone.

--History of Minor Games:

Minor games included Questron I and II (and its successor in flavor, Legacy of the Ancients), Wizard's Crown and its sequel The Eternal Dagger, and the Magic Candle series.

The Questron series was notable for its technology advancement. As play progressed, new and more powerful weapons would be invented, which the player could buy at shops. Questron was also notable for having the first gambling system. I remember building up a ludicrous amount of money (600,000 gold pieces) simply by gambling. Questron also allowed one to buy hit points and spells using money. There was no level advancement and no skill/spell advancement. Finally, Questron encouraged the use of different weapon types by having various monsters be especially vulnerable to a specific weapon type. For example, a whip did approximately x3 more damage against spiders than other normally available weapons.

Wizard's Crown and the Eternal Dagger were best known for two things. First, they had a "quick combat" feature that allowed you to conduct combats with groups of up to 99 enemies in abstraction, without having to go to a detailed tactical screen, as Ultima had to. Second, they featured an unusual variety of items, such as jars that could be used as shields, and golden weapons that were more treasure than actual fighting tool.

The Magic Candle series was notable for its introduction of jobs for PCs. You would drop off a PC at his job, come back some days later, and the PC would have some ready cash. The Magic Candle series was also one of the first to have a "non-Foozle" ending. That is, there was no big fight at the end. Instead, you had to perform an elaborate ritual using a magic candle. Finally, the Magic Candle series represented the peak of tile-graphics, creating an isometric top-down world through the use of simple tiles.

--MUDs, MOOs, and MUSHes, with a touch of MMORPGs

The main difference between MUDs and MOOs/MUSHes is that MUDs are heavily Gamist, while MOOs/MUSHEs are heavily Narrativist.

That is, MUDs generally have levels, weapons, spells, etc. which are gained through adventuring and killing things. MOOs and MUSHes rely on either player-created items and rooms or Social Contract to simulate a game. That is, in an AmberMUSH, say, you'd have a point-buy system for Logrus, Pattern, and Trump, but no hard-coded mechanics. Fighting is accomplised through "emotes" -- you describe the start of the action, the other guy describes its result. There is no hard-coded experience system.

MUDs, on the other hand, rely mainly on hard-coded systems. MUDs can generally be broken down into two types: LP (for Lars Penjat, who developed the variety of C that is used to modify an LP MUD without having to reboot) and Diku.

The main difference between LP and Diku MUDs, aside from the coding issues, lies in items. Player equipment in LP MUDs disappears on reboot of the computer the game is running on, unless they are stored, while player equipment on Diku MUDs stays with the player from reboot to reboot. However, equipment on LP MUDsis not restricted by level, while on Diku MUDs it is. That is, on a Diku MUD, a player must be a certain level to use an item. The more powerful the item, the higher level a character must be to use it. This results in an economy where higher level players give or sell items to lower level players.

Diku MUDs generally follow the AD&D model of 6 stats, some classes, and some races. However, many have a more advanced game system that allows customizing of classes during character creation by adding and dropping skill and spell groups (ie, healing, teleportation, etc.) These Diku MUDs often also have a number of different races, which incur penalties to experience, based on a point scale which is derived from the various advantages and stat maxes the race has. Races are generally not modifiable by a player.

Some MUDs also have advanced classes or races, accessible through reincarnation or quests. These are invariably more powerful than beginning classes and races.

Some MUDs also have quests. Sometimes these are prerequisites for gaining a certain level, other times they provide powerful items which can only be gotten through a quest.

Some MUDs have "build" aspects. In modern MMORPG games, this takes the form of a pet, which increases in level through the characters actions. In some MUDs, this takes the form of an item, usually a weapon, which increases in power due to specific behavior. For example, RetroMUD's Fallen class wield the Fellblade, which increases in power depending on how many and how powerful creatures are killed with it. In opposition to the Fallen are the Paladins, who are given a shield, which increases in power via the honorable deeds the Paladin does.

--Broken CRPGs:

Ron Edwards wrote:

Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e. Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never forced to readjust his or her strategy.

--Most LP and Diku MUDs are more or less broken, in the sense that you are encouraged to "farm" monsters either via respawn points, or reboots/restores. I remember making the rounds of early RetroMUD, going from area to area killing things. By the time I reached the last area, the first area would have respawned, allowing me to start the process again.

There are some limits. Many Diku style MUDs set effective level limits on what areas (regions of the game) will be rewarding to a character. The higher level a character is relative to a monster, the less experience the character will be rewarded. This is the same as the increasing level cost system on LP MUDs, where more and more experience is required to gain a level, while experience rewarded for killing a monster remains constant, depending on the level of the monster and its various advantages (spell-casting, elemental resistences [eg, versus fire, acid, etc.]) By contrast, level costs on a Diku MUD remain the same, while experience rewarded by monsters decreases.

Another way seems unique to RetroMUD, my old MUD -- monsters effectively gain or lose resistance to damage types (fire, acid, electricity, etc.) dynamically depending on how frequently those damage types are used by ALL the PCs throughout the game.

Neverless, tactical options are generally limited. RetroMUD did allow a number of "weakening" skills and spells, such as stuns from weapons and the paralyze spell, which both temporarily incapacitated a monster, allowing attacks to be much more effective. But ironically, the most powerful monsters were immune to these effects, making the most dangerous combats usually the least tactical ones -- hit hard and fast and heal whoever gets hurt.

Thankfully, there were a few tactical options left. For example, a monster might cast a spell that prevents the party of PCs from escaping. The only remaining option is then to dispel that spell, or "dimension door" out. Failure meant death.

--Modern MMORPGs

I can't say much about modern MMORPGs, never having played one. However, they do seem to be less technically sophisticated in terms of game mechanics than the best MUDs. For example, I believe Everquest has something like 11 classes and 9 races. By contrast, RetroMUD currently has 20 main classes and 60+ races. Everquest also lacks the customizability of many Dikus (mentioned above.)

Well, that was somewhat bizarre, but interesting. I suppose I'd have to read a bit more to know what prompted it.

What's interesting is that I knew a few of the games you described quite well, specifically Ultima IV and Rogue. And while I can't speak much for the present of the rogue "lineage" I can say that the Ultima Lineage has finally been completed with the 9th game, which continues in the vein of the Avatar of Virtue. The story and system is pretty good, but the engine is easily the buggiest I've ever played. They really rushed it out the door, unfortunately, and did not do it justice.

As for MMORPGs, I am also an avid player of the first real MMORPG, which has been going for over 6 years; Ultima Online. Origin has continued in the "We create worlds" vein by bringing Sosaria/Britannia to life in a whole new way. I can't speak for the customization that you speak of with the Diki MUDs, having never played a text-based MUD, or how sophisticated in "game mechanics" it is comparatively, but the options for play are fairly numerous, and like all MMORPGs, they update it periodically with new content, new play directions, etc. It is easily the least graphically sophisticated, but I think it makes up for it in roleplaying options (which can just as easily be ignored, and usually are, alas) and overall play options, not being restricted by classes and levels (though there is a semblance of both).

What also needs to be included in this are the old Sierra and Lucasarts (and other companies, but those were the biggies) adventure games, my personal little obssession; while not RPGs in the D&D vein, they fit quite nicely with the kinds of insight Ron may be looking for with roleplaying games in general.

I'll see if I can't find some time this weekend to get into those.

Very interesting stuff I enjoyed the read. You have left out a lot of the modern roleplaying games. This is a shame because I think that the modern CRPG market has acheive something increadble with some of its more recent ventures. Most specificly I would like to point out Arcanum.

Arcanum uses a steampunk setting, and it has a plot that rivals some of the stuff I could come up with. The thing that made this game so amazing is the variety. Not of the charecter classes you could play but the choises you can make. Now more and more CRPGs are giving the players oppertunity to play immoral characters, it is what made faalout 2 famouse, the wife selling puzzle is near infamouse. The thing about Arcanum is that if your charecter was good or evil it affected the game you played, but you could play the game either way with an equal amount of ease. In fact some major quests are only open to thouse of a certain alignment. This method of playing became so seamless that I actually got in charecter when I played the game. I started making my choises as an incharecter roleplayer to advance the plot and not how do I get the most powerful item, the choises I started to make weren't the path of least resistence but the most in charecter ones. The game was still highly playable and it even rewarded me in its own weird little way buy letting me find the magic thingus that I wouldn't of gotten otherwise. It was quite an amazeing game and it plays very diffrently depending on your alighnment.

Why is this important? Well look at the history up untill now CRGS have been mostly hack and slash dungeon crawl kill the foozle affairs. As great as Ultima IV is, it is a very restrictive game. If you don't play by its rules you get yelled at, or you are simply not allowed. It is more like playing through a novel rather than helping to tell the story yourself. Arcanum has come the closest to emulating this feeling that I have ever encountered. It is an interesting game and I would say that it has come the closest to bridging the crpg/tabletop gap yet.

Marrowind and Daggerfall give you the freedom to do whatever you want, but they are so vast...daggerfall especialy that you loose track of the main game in favor of amassing raw power. For example I played daggerfall for well over 2 1/2 years and I haven't even touched the plot. I was to busy trying to become a vampire. Arcanum offers you the moral freedom to be as good/evil as you choose but still guides you along a certain path.

Let's not forget the impact of the Console RPGs. I remember back in 1998 there was a "drought" of PC RPGs. Diablo (which doesn't even really count as an RPG) was the last one released at the time with Ultima, Wizardry, Elder Scrolls and all the Greats nowhere to be found. Then there comes a scrappy little underdog freshly ported from the Playstation called Final Fantasy VII. My gaming habits have never been the same.

In Japan, the RPG tradition began on the Famicom(Nintendo Entertainment system) instead of the Apple or IBM PC. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were the Wizardry and Ultima I of their day, being D&D style romps through colorful worlds. Also like Wizardy and Ultima, there were a ton of sequels, and also spin-offs or sidestories. One of the key differences between the Japanese RPGs and the American games was style.

The Early Japanese games were more or less freeform worlds where you could go and talk to characters and buy stuff with an almost completely separate battle simulator tacked on. Random Encounters were given a whole new meaning in the Japanese games, with monsters literally popping out of thin air in certain areas(instead of having some kind of simulated behaviour) between towns, but with towns being a safe harbor. The plot was also much easier to follow because apart from specific Side Quests, and battling random monsters, there wasn't anything to do except pursue the main plot.

This linearity helped drive home the characters and story. You were actually able to care about the characters you controlled and you could actually HATE the villains instead of merely saying "Hi, Evil Overlord. I'm the Hero and I'm going to kill you. Nothing personal". The detailed battle systems allowed for strategic and tactical thinking instead of forcing you to go and get BossSlayer from Mount Doom before even thinking of taking on the guy guarding the amulet. Practically every RPG also had a different method of customising characters which was linked to the battle system and made you think about the optimum way to equip your characters with weapons, magic crystals or spells and which skills to learn next. Many of them had Class or Job systems(Final Fantasy being the first, but Dragon Warrior surpassing FF's system) that allowed you to control who learned what and change classes at any time.

There are a TON of console RPGs now, of varying quality, but the best are the Final Fantasy series(especially IX), Dragon Warrior series, Chrono Trigger(a unique collaboration between the makers of FF & DW), Chrono Cross(a sort-of sequel to CT), Star Ocean 1-3/Valkyrie Profile(completely different stories, same developers and "system"), Phantasy Star 2, 3 or 4(depending on who you ask), Breath of Fire 3 & 4, Parasite Eve and Wild Arms 2(Haven't played #3, 1 sucked except for the music).

A spin off genre from console RPGs was the Tactical RPG. Tactical RPGs took battle systems to a whole new level with the battlefeild set out like a chess board(but with grass and water and walls) and allowing a player to control small Units instead of Parties of characters. Look out for the new Final Fantasy Tactics and (the first in the U.S.) Fire Emblem games coming out for the GBA for examples of Tactical RPGs. Some Tactical RPGs, like the Ogre Battle series took direct control of the characters away from the player, but allowed Formations, Commands and entire armies to fight each other in real time! Tactical RPGs tended to have a cast of hundreds rather than dozens and universally had a more epic feel tot hem than the classic Console RPGs.

Another spin-off genre from traditional Console RPGs was the Action RPG. Action RPGs were games like The Legend of Zelda, Secret of Mana, the Tales series and Terranigma, many of which were not released outside of Japan in spite of the popularity of the Zelda series. Action RPGs did have exploration, action and monsters that you could battle without jumping into a parralel dimension(play any FF1-9 if you don't know what I mean), but often at the cost of detailed inventories, character management and tragically, plot. (The Legend of Zelda had virtually no plot, the plot of Terranigma was obscure and at the end too mindbendingly weird to follow, and the plot of Secret of Mana was there but did it's best to not get in the way of the action.). The impact of Action RPGs is only now being felt. The line between Action RPGs and character action games is now extremely blurred (Ratchet & Clank and Devil May Cry being the best examples), and some games attempt to integrate elements of all of three genres(Lost Kingdoms & Chaos Legion being good examples).

Just a quick note: Dark Cloud 2 is an Action RPG that has completely integrated detailed RPG style management into it AND has a wide open detailed world like the PC RPGs, and it has an Invention system AND it has a decent plot(although Emperor Griffin is more like a 1 dimensional Boss than a Nemesis) and is just so incredible that I reccomend it over anything that's out currently, on the PC or any console, including my precious Arcanum and Zelda: Wind Waker. DC2 has everything but a tactical system and if you want to have a good feel of what Console RPGs have to offer wrapped up in one game, buy Dark Cloud 2.

Final Fantasy IX is the reason I bought a Playstation. Final Fantasy X is one of the reasons I bought a Playstation 2(Dark Cloud 2 being one of the other reasons). Don't ignore or underestimate Final Fantasy just because the movie sucked. ;)

nice amount of information there, although there are some organization problems... the main one being that your organization of game lineages seems to be based on which ones you enjoyed most, rather than in order of development. for example, you imply that ultima and wizardry precede zork and rogue. this is perhaps because the history of games on mainframes and minicomputers is completely ignored.

I'm going to deal with rogue-like games in their own thread, but I thought I'd offer this revised history here:



• the first dungeon-like computer game, hunt the wumpus, was created either at the same time as D&D in the pen-and-paper game world or even earlier. it's not an rpg inany sense, more like mastermind or battleship with a fantasy flavor -- move in a cave system, guess the location of the wumpus based on sensory clues, and aim your bow and arrow. still, the concepts of wumpus would influence all of the CRPGs to follow.
• the next innovation was ADVENT, the first adventure game, in 1972. this was an attempt at computer-DMed D&D; its main feature was equating a logical decision table with the rooms and passages of a cave or dungeon. ZORK showed up in 1976 and the entire line of text adventures took off from there, eventually turning into text-and-graphics and point-and-click adventures (sierra games like King's Quest.)
• the first MUD was designed as a multi-user variant of an ADVENT offshoot called DUNGEON (the creator thought DUNGEON would be the definitive ADVENT-like game because ZORK hadn't shown up yet, so he called his game Multi User Dungeon.) the main feature here, of course, is the multiuser nature. some people, preferring more social interaction, began to drift the original MUD and variations began to show up.
• in the late '70s, some people took the Curses cursor-control library and used it to write Rogue, which wound up included in the BSD Unix distribution in 1980. the main feature of Rogue was random environment creation, which would eventually be applied to items as well as the dungeon itself. also, rogue-like games began to emphasize levels of power and combination of items or actions.



the first CRPGs on the PC and Mac platforms were ports or variants of these games, followed by improvements and mixing of the three main types of CRPG. one obvious example is the development of simple pixel graphic versions of each of these, followed by improvements to the graphics and integration with mouse-driven Windows/Icons/Menus/Popups (WIMP) interfaces.

the main pattern for today's CRPGs seems to be:

-- use ADVENT's flowcharting technique to create a quest structure;
-- use Rogue's random environment technique within individual regions in that structure to create a detailed world.

Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, and Dungeon Siege emphasize the level-up/combo nature of rogue-like games on top of that, with Diablo in particularly being the most rogue-like of the three. Myst-like games would de-emphasize levelling-up and randomness, leaning more toward the ADVENT side of their lineage. the most recent games tend to be Rogue-ADVENT hybrids as single player games, but with a MUD-like online play component that drops the ADVENT-like quest structure.

Games worthy of mention:

Darklands, the old Microprose title designed by Sandy Petersen (who also worked on CoC and Doom); Fallout and Fallout 2; and a playstation CRPG called Legend of Dragoon.

Darklands was set in medieval Germany and the game only had one sort of overall quest: To rid the world of witchcraft. If you didn't feel like doing that, you could just play as mercenaries and become the world's most powerful warriors by taking out the strongholds of robber barons and other villains. The best part was the magic system. No spells, but characters could call on saints for assistance or buy/make alchemical potions. Lots of flavor. Characters needed to learn Latin, preserve Virtue, and build knowledge of Religion because the Church was a powerful force in the game. Chargen was really cool, too. You could start a young character with little experience, or build up skills and age by adding occupational stints. Of course, because of character aging, it was always better to start out with rookies and build them up. It took 7 patches before the damn thing would play right; but once Microprose fixed it, what a game!

The Fallout titles are combat-oriented post-apocalyptic rpgs. In theory, you could be a charismatic leader getting others to fight for you or a stealthy thief; but in practice, combat skills are king. It was supposed to be the GURPS rpg, but Steve Jackson and Interplay had their differences. Thus, the game became Fallout without SJG.

Legend of Dragoon isn't worthy based on innovations. It's just a beautiful game with lots of lush backgrounds, nice sounds, good cutscenes, entertaining combat, first-rate spell effects, etc. Its purpose was to challenge Final Fantasy for supremacy. Of course, it was one of the last games released for PS1 before PS2 came out. The game fills 4 CDs and took Sony 3 years to complete. Believe it or not, it really looks like 3 years' worth of work.

IIRC, there was a nifty scifi roleplayer for Genesis called Star Frontiers; and the Phantasy Star series is at least worth a nod in passing.

I'd just like to mention Lucusarts adventure games and Betrayal at Krondor. The former because they were of the first adventure games to give you areas to explore rather than situations as well as a lack of character deaths; the latter because it was one of the first freedom adventure games (predating arena?). Oh well. And though I know it's been mentioned before, Chrono Trigger, 'cause it's awesome.

An attempt at dates:

Hunt the Wumpus: Yob, 1972, earlier?
-based on the hide and seek games of PCC
Collossal Cave Adventure / ADVENT: Crowther, Woods 1975 "give or take a year"
DND: Lawrence 1976
Mines of Moria: Battin, Duncombe 1976-1977
Zork: Blank, Liebling 1977
Oubliette: Schwaiger 1977
Avatar: ??? 1979
Temple of Apshai: Connelly, Freeman, et al 1979
Akalabeth: Garriott 1979
Rogue: Arnold, Toy, Wichman 1980
Ultima: Gariott 1980
Wizardry: Greenberg, Woodhead 1981

Note there is a lot of confusion about the dates of the PLATO games.

If you were wondering why the heck I posted this, it was in reply to a paragraph in Ron's Gamism essay.

Yes, I know I left out the great modern RPGs, -and- the great console RPGs, -and- large bits of the graphic adventure lines, but I simply am not qualified to speak on them.

Thanks to those of you who filled in the gaps.

I chose the layout, again, because I had to work with what I knew. Thanks for setting me straight on that too.

Yes, I know Final Fantasy rocks. It scored higher than Ultima IV/Ultima series on...what was it...GamePro's?...list of the best all time games. Significantly higher I might add.

Yes, I know that modern games are far more flexible than "old school" ones. I hear "Temple of Elemental Evil" is taking this to an extreme, with like 50 or 60 endings (according to a recent review in...Computer Gaming World I think) -and- 9 beginnings, one for each AD&D alignment. And Daggerfall does rock...I was pretty blown away when I just heard about the chargen system. I can't run it though, using a Mac, and even if I could, I'm too busy these days to play much.

And yes, I know that Ultima is still continuing on quite nicely, even without Lord British.

Thanks for pointing out games like "Hunt the Wumpus," though. I completely forgot about those, though I have played them.

But like I said, I don't know these games well enough to talk about them. This last bit with all the "yes"es is just my way of saying "I'm not completely clueless."

Hey Palaskar,

Why so defensive? You done good. The history of CRPGs is big, and it's muddy because sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between computerized roleplaying and tactical/adventure games with roleplaying overtones. Your initial post was a good start point. People who add stuff are just helping out with wherever this is going. The thing is, CRPGs are big business; so many have come out and keep coming out that it would take a lot of time and energy to track it all down.

I would like to add the leaps forward in console RPGs, while we're at it

The first breakthrough I am aware of in this area is Atari's Adventure for the Atari VCS AKA Atari 2600. Named after Colossal Cave Adventure AKA ADVENT AKA simple Adventure, it was the first RPG-like game available for a home video game system. Programmer Warren Robinett took on a seeemingly impossible task of making a translation of the text-based game for a machine which could only really do graphics*. This game ushered in the age of graphical adventure games. Text-only would still have a life after this Atari cartridge, but the writing was on the wall. Atari followed this one up with Superman which is a very similar game in many ways, Haunted House and Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Swordquest series,** and others, both from Atari and a few from other companies.

While Atari was Working on their own Adventure Catridge, Mattel Electronics had a game also with that working title for their Intellision system. Once the Atari game beat theirs to the market and the name, Mattel didn't mind since that managed to secure the rights to the name Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The link tells the history better than I can ever hope to, but it is an important step in the development since it was an officially licenced product. Mattel would produce another AD&D cartridge and have a third slated for release before they closed their door. The third game was released by INTV without the AD&D name on it.***

I would also like to note that both draw some inspirationf from Hunt the Wumpus. AD&D's character is an archer with only 3 arrows and Adventure has that damned bat that moves objects around randomly (also in Superman with the helicopter)

Another cartridge of note is The Quest for the Rings for the Odyssey^2 system. The graphics and sound on the Odyssey^2 are arguably much worse than the Atari 2600, but the O2 had a full typewriter-like keyboard. The Quest for the Rings is part video game, part board game with an overlay that goes over the keyboard so the "Ringmaster" can create their own adventures.****

Some addtional points:
Many games listed here, and others not mentioned, seem to imply that fantasy = RPG, which we know is not the case. Is the arcade game Venture and RPG? It's a dungeon, but is it an RPG? I don't think so.

One thing that seems to remain is collecting items, tools if you will, that will help you on your quest for...whatever.

Perhaps these games aren't RPGs or even CRPGs so much as RPG-inspired.


* It bears noting that a crazy guy did make a text adventure for the Atari 2600

** For those unfamiliar with the Swordquest series, go here.

*** In a seeming response to this, Coleco optioned Tunnels & Trolls for their Colecovision system. Unfortunately, unlike Mattel who simply slapped a name on an existing fantasy/dungeon game, they seemed to be set on making a cartridge out of the RPG. No small task. The project was eventually ported to their ADAM computer system and it still wasn't finished when Coleco shut down their electronics division. What they had was given to existing ADAM users as freeware and it only has a nice animated title screen. 22K is a lot for a title screen, even a nice one, but everything else in the game appears to not be finishedand they simply looped the title screen.

**** Phillips/Magnavox, makers of the Odyssey^2 also made 3rd party software for other consoles, their unreleased game Lord of the Dungeon for the Colecovision sound like what Coleco was trying to do with the T&T cartridge.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Many games listed here, and others not mentioned, seem to imply that fantasy = RPG, which we know is not the case. Is the arcade game Venture and RPG? It's a dungeon, but is it an RPG? I don't think so.

talysman wrote: I dunno if we're interested so much in whether these games are really RPGs. what we're really exploring is Ron's question about whether Gamism "vanishing" (or being banished) from RPG texts has any connection to the rise of computer games.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: *** In a seeming response to this, Coleco optioned Tunnels & Trolls for their Colecovision system.

talysman wrote:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Many games listed here, and others not mentioned, seem to imply that fantasy = RPG, which we know is not the case. Is the arcade game Venture and RPG? It's a dungeon, but is it an RPG? I don't think so.

I dunno if we're interested so much in whether these games are really RPGs. what we're really exploring is Ron's question about whether Gamism "vanishing" (or being banished) from RPG texts has any connection to the rise of computer games.

we might have gotten a little off track, here, since the thread seems to be turning into a "remember this game?" passtime. still, each post seems to mention at least one change/development in the history of computer games.

we might have gotten a little off track, here, since the thread seems to be turning into a "remember this game?" passtime.

Caldis wrote: At any rate there are many of these type games that do emphasize the story aspect where the game play is just a puzzle to solve to reveal the story. Look at Myst or Final Fantasy 7 for examples of this.

M. J. Young wrote:
I think this is a different form of Gamism--the puzzle/mystery variant. Although I don't play, I know that with FF7, at least, players are still trying to "beat the game" or "finish the game".

Narrativist play is difficult to do with people; using an AI to adjudicate makes it nearly impossible, although it's not my field so I'm not sure how close we are to anything like that.

Caldis wrote: Maybe in GNS terms it would be a Simulationist exploration of color, but I'm not sure that would be entirely correct.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that's right. My wife tries the puzzles in Myst once, and then finds a walkthrough somewhere to tell her how to get by each as soon as she's the least bit stumped. She doesn't want to win so much as to see the nifty stuff happen.

I'd say that it's a little bit of Drift from the otherwise plainly Gamist design.

Hell even I use walkthrus. I think it is similar to the massive difference between playing against the computer and playing against real people. There is a point at which the puzzles just become the Form, an annoyance rather than the point. This is quite different from something like The Incredible Machine, which makes puzzles the only point. Tomb Raider 1 suffered from this terribly, with large amounts of time spent wandering the cave-scape experimentally jumping at walls to discover if there was a tiny obscured ledge you had hitherto failed to notice.

contracycle wrote: There is a point at which the puzzles just become the Form, an annoyance rather than the point.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Begs the question, what is the point?

I think people have tried to make Narrativist games, I'd put PlaneScape into this catagory.

It was a very laid back game, there were multiple ways to do most things. You could change classes pretty much whenevery you wanted, also you'd ressurrect if you died and you could bring back your party members.(none of this even cost anything, at worst you'd have to wait).
The charachtarization was quite good given the medium(you could do alot of interaction with your party, although this wasn't particuarly necessary).

Interstingly enough there have been a couple attempts to combine CRPG's with other genera's.

Like Deus Ex(FFS+CRPG). It had charachter develpment and additionaly one's interactions did have some effect on the game. FFS's have the limitation that it's just not technially feasable to provide the spectrum of choices necessary.

There is no such thing as a Narrativist crpg; and I seriously wonder if it's even possible for such a thing to exist. No crpg actually empowers the player to make story. Instead, crpgs provide challenges (puzzles, tactical combats, etc); things to gather (levels, experience, items, etc); and things to see (prescripted stories, movies, etc.). The combination of these things is intended to hook the player - And the good games do exactly that.

The existence of variable character development, multiple storylines, multiple endings, and a proliferation of in-game responses to player decisions is just another hook to keep players playing the game and to provide the sense that the game is worth its price. The existence of walk-through play is simply more proof that the definition of crpgs is muddy. Is Myst a crpg, or is it a story presented in the context of a game and overlaid with compelling visual imagery? Is Lara Croft a crpg, or is that just Mario Bros with boobs and a pair of .45's? The designers of Diablo say flat-out that Diablo is not an RPG - It's Diablo. In the marketplace, Diablo is treated as an RPG and Lara is treated as an adventure game. Really, what is the difference between them?

A lot of the games we call crpgs are actually linear stories overlaid with pregenerated characters, graphics, puzzles, gathering activities, and tactical challenges. I'd like to say something really incisive here, but it's not in my brain. Instead, I'm left scratching my head and wondering, what defines a real crpg as compared to all these other things.

In attempt to answer my own question, I have these elements:

-Player-defined characters created through some sort of chargen process.
-Multiple story paths or goals intended to give the players freedom of choice.
-Multiple outcomes based on player decisions.

These are tall orders; and yet, how many people play pen and paper rpgs that are really linear adventure games with personalized characters?

Hunter Logan wrote: There is no such thing as a Narrativist crpg; and I seriously wonder if it's even possible for such a thing to exist. No crpg actually empowers the player to make story. Instead, crpgs provide challenges (puzzles, tactical combats, etc); things to gather (levels, experience, items, etc); and things to see (prescripted stories, movies, etc.). The combination of these things is intended to hook the player - And the good games do exactly that.

My comments are strictly limited in scope to single player crpgs. The miniplots sound interesting, but they are implemented by people. That means the players can't make story as part of the software. As a fine point, how much of the interaction in a MUD/MUSH is controlled by the software and how much by people? What is the computer's role, and at what point can one say that the MUD/MUSH is not a crpg, but an actual rpg played through a computer interface? If I want a tinyplot in a MUD and I send that to a human moderator who will make it so, this seems the same as submitting the request to the GM in a PBEM game.

TinyPlots are just one example, though. Here's some other sorts of examples:

- In some older MUDs, one goal of the game was to become a "wizard". One did this by reaching a particular very high level, at which point the player could create new "areas" to add to the game -- creating new map rooms, stocking them with NPCs, creatures, objects, etc. It soon became apparent, though, that good players are not always good adventure-creators (and vice-versa), so few (possibly no) modern MUDs work this way. On more modern muds, players have to apply to become "wizards" (or "coders", or "builders", or whatever terminology the MUD in question uses). The process varies from "the guy running the MUD has to like you" through setups which give the prospective builder limited access, require him/her to build a small "area", and then have others review the "area" to see if it's considered good enough.

- On some TinyMUDs I've played on, the initial setting is that everyone can "build" -- i.e., create rooms, creatures, objects, etc. During this period, players only have access to a "shared" area created by the administrators, and their own created areas. The game is left in that state for a few months, and then everyone is "demoted" back to being players, and allowed to explore what each other have created.

- Some MUSHes are set up so that anyone can build, any time.

- Furcadia (http://www.furcadia.com allows players to create "dreams", their own mini-games within the game. Here again, players can create creatures, objects, maps, etc. within their "dream". A "dream" can't really do anything permanent to the character (thus the name), but it's still a way to "make a story".

In a lot of ways, these are like "level generators" for other computer games... they give players who want to take the time access to the game's tools for creating things. One could consider it to be the equivalent of "writing a module" for a paper RPG. How sophisticated they get varies -- some have full programming languages, so that a knowledgeable-enough player can create almost anything within the game.

The degree of power varies greatly. In general, it varies according to how difficult it is to become a player (some games allow anyone to connect, generate a character, and start playing, while others have an "application process", where one has to come up with character background and possibly stats, and then submit those and wait for approval) and the purpose of the game ("loot & level" games obviously would have problems with allowing anyone to create content -- players could make it very easy for themselves or their friends, or set traps for other characters. Strongly RP-oriented games are more likely to allow everyone at least limited ability to create things.)

--Travis

Hunter Logan wrote: As a fine point, how much of the interaction in a MUD/MUSH is controlled by the software and how much by people? What is the computer's role, and at what point can one say that the MUD/MUSH is not a crpg, but an actual rpg played through a computer interface? If I want a tinyplot in a MUD and I send that to a human moderator who will make it so, this seems the same as submitting the request to the GM in a PBEM game.

Speculation: Is it possible that the rise of Narritivism has to do with the competition between CRPGs and P&P RPGs. Out of just my opinion, if I want to do tactical combat, it doesn't hurt to have the rules carried out instantaniously with nice spell effects. What if P&P RPGs are simply adapting to suit a different environment?

To clarify my point about the puzzles defeating the purpose:

If the basic act is Exploration, then being bogged down in a puzzle prevents exploration. To me this is analogous to character death, in that the player has effectively stopped playing. At best, play progress is temporarily suspended while the player solves the problem of how to continue playing.

Play is also often bogged down with random combats all the time. The final Fantasy Series is horrible with this, and other game even more. Take one step, fight an monster. Take another step, fight a monster. Take a third step, fight a monster. Bleh!

M.J. and Travis,

Thank you both for your responses. It sounds like some of the current MUDs are a lot closer to actual roleplaying than single player crpgs. It also sounds like the presence of human staff goes a long way to providing narrative input, or at least some director control for the players.

Greetings all, I'm fairly new with alot of the terminology being thrown around but I thought I might drop a few insights from the crpg side of the fence. I have been designing online rpg's for almost a decade now with several semi-successful designs(if success were to be judged in the number of players who joined the game) and a contributing member to the devolpment community for muds. Most of my background is in the text based gaming but like almost all of the players of crpgs my formal introduction to roleplay came from tabletop.
I'll briefly touch a few of the topics hit on and if there is any further intrest I would be more than happy to expand, and just as likely to ask questions myself.
An excellent gaming timeline can be found HERE.

Eric J
Is it possible that the rise of Narritivism has to do with the competition between CRPGs and P&P RPGs. Out of just my opinion, if I want to do tactical combat, it doesn't hurt to have the rules carried out instantaniously with nice spell effects. What if P&P RPGs are simply adapting to suit a different environment?

Hunter
It sounds like some of the current MUDs are a lot closer to actual roleplaying than single player crpgs.