One thing that reguarly pushes my interest in gaming towards the narrativist and world-building (I guess this is simulationist, but so is wanting to know exactly which tendon that sword cuts, so I'm still wondering about that) modes is the following observation. A lot of the tactical and problem-solving satisfactions of dungeon-mauling or gunfighting kinds of games can already be handled by computers, and many more are falling to them day by day. Right now I think there are still some joys to be had out of straight-up gamist play at the tabletop that you can't get in a multiuser computer game, but I also think the computers will do most of those things better within 10-15 years too.

This includes the personal/player aspects of gamism, by the way, we're going to see virtual environments (I suspect) with hundreds of thousands or millions of players, such that you can pretty much guarantee that someone else you know plays them, allowing for bragging rights, and likewise pretty much guarantee that in various social situations, you'll be able to talk to people you just met and brag about what your character did or has or whatever. There will be a 'McDonald's' of the NWN/UO etc. genre within the next two decades. Better graphics, better computer intelligence, faster on-line response times, dozens of bright people designing stories and environments...it's all going to be there, and at some point, it will hit.

So I guess this question/topic has two dimensions:

1) If you're designing an explicitly Gamist game, how do you emphasize aspects which computers CANNOT, ideally in principle but in any case practically relative to what they can do right now, do just as well or better?

2) If there is no plausible answer to 1, does that mean that story- and world-building-type games are the only remaining plausible directions for RPGs to go as a genuinely creative art form?

(Ultimately it's not even clear that world-building will survive the computer challenge. What would we DMs do with a program that remembered everything we wrote, kept track of our cities and maps and NPCs for us, our cosmology, etc., in a non-clunky way, filling in things for us as we went and giving us endless edit power when it filled them in in a way we didn't like? What if you could make your own Tekumel or Glorantha as fast as you could type it in and see it through, while the more exploratory on-line players started wandering through the environment from the very beginning. All this and more could come to pass, if people cared to make it happen.)

(By the way, just for the record, I fucking hate computer games and don't relish the future I am here predicting. But I do think this is something RPG designers might do well to keep in mind - how do we avoid obsolescence? This to me is one of the strongest arguments for Narrativist design, insofar as I understand it. Well, I'll wait to see what you more knowledgeable theory-types think about all this before saying more, I think.)

Calithena wrote: 1) If you're designing an explicitly Gamist game, how do you emphasize aspects which computers CANNOT, ideally in principle but in any case practically relative to what they can do right now, do just as well or better?

Hi Calithena,

Recently Gareth (contracycle) sent me the link to Counter-Strike, in the course of a conversation we were having. Your current topic leads me to think Counter-Strike is an excellent example of the trends you're talking about, insofar as they're "trends." Note especially how many freakin' users we're looking at with this thing.

Best,
Ron

Great question. I've often asked this myself.

Taking a look at the wargaming me and my friends do for example: we're playing this game called "Europa Universalis" (no relation). Now, the game is sixty turns long as a board game, with each turn representing 5 years of time. So, it spans world history from 1492 to 1792 - discovery of the new world to the French Revolution. Each turn takes us about 4 hours or so on average. We usually do 2 turns a session, one session a month. So the game should take us about 2.5 years to complete. Less with hustle, more with delays in shceduling. We're about half way through, and on-target in terms of time.

Since we've started playing this game (we've played 3 times now, finishing none), many years ago, a computer version of the game has come out. And a second version. Yes, play of this game takes more time than computer development of the game.

Anyhow, playing through a single game on the computer can take about 1/100th the time. I started working on a series of spreadsheets to improve our play time at one point. And it occured to me - why am I doing computer design to help with a game for which there's already a computer version?

The answer is that I don't know. For one thing, I'm not sure about the social aspect. That is, I'm not sure if there's a multi-player version of the computer game. But, assuming there is in it's latest incarnation, what would that mean for play? Would it be the same thing but better? Would we lose the social aspect?

Well, I'm not totally sure. I think that my group and I are (ironically considering we're all programmers and such) simply dinosaurs, who do FTF because that's what we're used to doing, to be sure. The problem has become so prominent, however, that I think it's the cause of our latest delay in play of several months.


Indeed, what can be done FTF in terms of strategy, etc. that can't be done on a machine much more efficiently? I think that I could invent things, but they mostly come down to things like Andrew points out, things which move the game into more of a LARP sort of mode. Tabletop play is virtual by it's very nature, however (I think LARP will continue as a form unabated by computer advancement). Computers are capable of delivering that virtual environment in it's tactical details far better than paper and pencil. So for Gamist tabletop, the conclusion seems inevitable.

Now, that leaves the social aspect. Computer interfaces can tend to make the social end problematic. But that's becoming less and less of a problem, too, what with video stream play becoming more and more practical. But there's the co-location thing as well.

What I think is the ultimate solution is what I call CARP, Computer Aided Role-Playing. That is, using computers as tools to better enable FTF play. That way you get the best of both worlds. Social play with the computer benefits. A neat thing about this is that, if a player can't attend, physically, then they can attend virtually. So you could have 3 players present, and 3 players from remote locales, for example. It's just a matter of somebody designing it, really.

And it's nearly here. The confrencing is available, and computer programs as aides. All that's really needed is to link it all together. One of the problems is that the platforms that are being designed are for use with any RPG. That is, they aren't specific to the RPG in quesiton. Given the time that development requires, I think that this will continue to be the case indefinitely. This fact drastically limits the advantages for Gamist play at this point. But the theory is sound, IMO.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
And it's nearly here. The confrencing is available, and computer programs as aides. All that's really needed is to link it all together. One of the problems is that the platforms that are being designed are for use with any RPG. That is, they aren't specific to the RPG in quesiton. Given the time that development requires, I think that this will continue to be the case indefinitely. This fact drastically limits the advantages for Gamist play at this point. But the theory is sound, IMO.

Mike

"But there's the co-location thing as well."

In addition to the possible future fixes you note, even right now four people can bring their laptops over to a fifth's house and they all can go into a shared multi-user world and adventure as a party, D&D style. Right now, again, I think this is in some respects less satisfying than traditionally fun gamist tabletop play, even from a strictly gamist perspective, but I don't see any reason to expect that that won't change in the next twenty years.

I play a lot of computer and console games. Far more than I've played tabletop roleplaying, in fact. My earliest memory is playing Frogger on a kit-built RadioShack Tandy, so games are pretty well ingrained in me. ;) I'm also writing my own little game based off console RP/adventure games (actual game, not a parody like Console). So that's where I'm coming from on this stuff

Answer to 1: Filling holes that are unavailable to you.

Without getting into a breakdown of the different kinds of electronic games referred to as "roleplaying games", the short answer is that it's a capitalist society. This means that any games produced that are going to have any kind of success will:

* Target the largest audiences available
* Be easy to code
* Look as good as current technology allows
* Be cheap to create and maintain
* Work on current hardware and software profiles

There's always going to be some group of people who are too small for companies to cater to, and who don't have the skill or resources to build the game they want. Tabletop gaming is a great substitute for that.

The "right now" addendum is that a lot of what people want is too damnably difficult to code. Eventually that won't be an issue, but for right now, a lot of what tabletop has to offer is flexibility. Programmers could conceivably work on this, but it's more profitable to go for the easier code and make money now.

Last factor is that some people just prefer hanging out around a table instead of a computer.

(Ultimately it's not even clear that world-building will survive the computer challenge. What would we DMs do with a program that remembered everything we wrote, kept track of our cities and maps and NPCs for us, our cosmology, etc., in a non-clunky way, filling in things for us as we went and giving us endless edit power when it filled them in in a way we didn't like? What if you could make your own Tekumel or Glorantha as fast as you could type it in and see it through, while the more exploratory on-line players started wandering through the environment from the very beginning. All this and more could come to pass, if people cared to make it happen.)