The Forge Archives

The subject of CRPG's was brought up in this http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12205>thread in Site Discussion and it brought to my mind a few ideas and questions which I thought might be more appropriate here, cause they will delve into theory.  

Computers and RPG

Much of this is anecdotal, since I am at work and have to work and write this. J The CRPG genre has very long history, if you go back to the days of Wizardry and the like. Most (many?) have been heavily influenced by the dominant tabletop game, style and theme, that being Dungeons & Dragons, Fantasy, and kill the bad guy.  Games like Wasteland broke the mode somewhat and many games of other CG genres, like Space Sims and FPS, added elements of role-playing.  Mostly these were either allowing you to choose some skills as your guy got better or allowing you to name your character and follow a story arc ala Wing Commander (I&II).  Still, with a single player game at the time, the best you could hope for was a tactical game with tabletop RPG seasoning.

Along came multiplayer... Well with LAN and Internet Multiplayer, you now had the opportunity to kill your friends or kill stuff with them.  So games edged closer to that table top idea. With the propagation of MUD and MUCH and all those other acronyms, text RPGs became very popular (and indeed still are).  Finally in 1998-99, Everquest hit the scene.  Now, EQ was NOT the first MMORPG, but it was the first that captured the imagination of the computer game crowd en masse. EQ and the latest generation have come the closest to GM-less RPG play.

CRPG & SIS (Shared Imagined Space)

There was some discussion about whether a single player CRPG is indeed a Role Playing Game (RPG). To be able to consider them in the same light as a TTRPG (TT = Tabletop) or MMORPG (dontcha love acronyms) I think we would have to expand the idea of the SIS. That is to say that in Solo-play, the SIS is shared between author(s) and Player. The Author(s) do 95% of the work, then box it up and hand it over to the Player.  It is no different then playing a Solo adventure module, except the computer does a great deal of the work for you.

I would say that technology now exists to create a CRPG, single player game that allows great choices and character development then previous incarnations.

What design elements and ideas do you think would be necessary to create a CRPG that is MORE like the table top games that we are all familiar with?

For the record I do not see why the Forge CAN'T be open to the discussion of CRPGs.  


Sean

For an excellent example of what you're talking about, you need go no further than Knights of the Old Republic.

KotOR has much broader choices than your usual CRPG when it comes to choices; while you still end up tracking down the bad guy and figuring out who you really are, there's a great deal of latitude in HOW you go about those things.

I think we'll see that latitude grow even wider as time goes on.

Shared Imagined Space. . .

If there is no-one to share it with, then it's daydreaming.

Yes but does SIS have to be here and now OR, can SIS be expanded to include the pre-packaged Solo mode of CRPG? After all, playing PBEM, or Forum or Wiki games are still considered RPG even though people are not sitting in the same room? The creator(s) or author(s) are doing most of the creation true, but then the Player adds their bit and makes choices. So I think it is more then day dreaming.


Sean

It's a matter of definition. No bolt of lightning will fry you if you define SIS to include solitary imagining or such. The key is to consider whether such a definition is useful. For me, it's not. A key characteristic of the Shared Imagined Space is that it's shared. In a CRPG you have a one-way relationship with the author: he gives you a matrix of decisions which you juggle. This is essentially the same thing you do with a book, by the way: you as the audience process the work which somebody else has created.

Granted, the most base kind of D&D can reach into this area of play through use of a repressive GM and readymade scenarios. Even in these cases, however, the creative connection exists in potentia. It's a choice of all the players to not break the rules or simply find an alternative solution to that offered by the scenario. These are the kinds of choices that make the imagined space shared, and which are not allowed by computer games.

The primary difference is that with Solo play (CRPG or Solo tabletop module), the author does not, in fact, have input.  The game designer's role is *identical* to Tolkien's role in my playing MERP by myself.  I take that information into "my" imagined space, but cannot contribute anything back.  The game designer will never know or participate in what I do with the game, any more than Tolkien will.  

I cannot contribute back, nor can they contribute again.  There is no negotiation.  I can't say "What?  That doesn't make sense" and get a response.  They can't say "No no, you've completely gotten what the elves are doing backwards."

James

I will admit that up until now, CRPG's have done a poor to average job of eliciting Player Input and choice into the SIS. There is often the illusion of choice and control, but the very same thing can be said about some table top games and game sessions. Your not an outside observer, you are becoming the Point of View for the created world and I think that is why it is different then reading a book. In fact, Choose your own adventure books come close to being RPG's.(IMO)

As long as both sides understand the Social Contract involved ie we make world and you Explore it, then I think the parameters of SIS are being met and thus it is a legitimate RPG.  Admittedly it would be harder try and explain it as a Social activity, only in the broadest context that other people are presambly also going throught the game and that computer gaming is something many people do.

All of this originated out of a new person's question about why we did not discuss CRPG's more. The Forge is about broadening horizons and re-thinking old attitudes.  Yet still we can be reluctant to open up the dynamic to anyone who may stand even just a little bit outisde of our dearly held beliefs.  


Sean

Instead of asking "is playing a CRPG roleplaying?" ask "how does roleplaying change when the events of the game happen according to really-truly non-human, non-social arbitration, not consensus?"

The big model can be adapted to describe CRPGs, I'm pretty sure.  But please let's not talk about the "SIS" of a computer game.  It's doing violence to the idea.  Computer games don't have SISs, they have Ss, without the "shared" or the "imaginary."  Using SIS for what computer games have is going to wicked screw up people's grasp on the term.

Going forward, it seems to me that it'd be especially important to work out how to create meaningful player authorship when the game isn't collaborative.  For random instance, how do you let the player identify which conflicts are interesting and which aren't?

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpley
Going forward, it seems to me that it'd be especially important to work out how to create meaningful player authorship when the game isn't collaborative.  For random instance, how do you let the player identify which conflicts are interesting and which aren't?

-Vincent

Hmm probably the hardest part, as I see it, is the idea of the One Big Ending. Even in KoTOR, which had multiple paths, really still had one ending, though it could change depending on your path during the game.

So even when you have many, unrelated quests that you can go on, these tend to only give you more strength for that final conflict.  So in essence the main conflict is pre-ordained and often there is only one or two ways to win.

First off, untill we had input from a wide range of audiences, or an advanced AI, the game creators are never going to be able to come up with as much conflict and indeas as people, thinking on their own. So even as we would expand the conflicts available and open it up to more Player choices, we would still have to recognize and harness the limitations.

Second, would be breaking the CGM (Corporate Gaming Model) hold on these games while still making them interesting to the audience. Halo did this to an extent, since Master Chief does not get stronger as the game progresses, which is a staple of CRPG play (RPG play in general really). In general CRPG's are still about gaining levels and getting stronger to take on Mr Bad Guy.


Sean

I addressed some of this in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12205">the aforementioned parent thread, which is worth comparing, I think.

My conclusion is that in a CRPG the computer (and not the game designer) has to be recognized as one of the players. It is limited to what it's been "told" via the programming, and to its own abilities. The latter is true of all of us--we are limited by our abilities. In this case, though, the processor's limitations in its abilities are jarringly different from our own--it is very good at several things which are problematic for us (rapid number crunching, precise positioning of imagined elements) while being very poor at things most of us find relatively easy (characterization, moral judgment, personal interaction).

I also think Vincent is putting too fine a distinction on the shared imaginary space. In most computer games, such a shared imaginary space is in fact far more fully shared, because the computer player is able to show us precisely the image of the scene as it has constructed it, and the direct effects of its own decisions and actions within it. We input our intended actions, and it generally responds by adjusting its image of the situation to incorporate what it understands to be our intention. (It might seem more like a role playing game if it asked, "Do you mean this?" or if it allowed you to scroll back and correct a misunderstood instruction, but that would also slow it down, and a considerable part of the appeal of this medium is the speed with which the shared imaginary space is updated and communicated.)

Thus when I'm playing with people, I'm imagining what I think they're imagining, based on what they tell me and what I tell them. When I'm playing with a computer, I'm imagining what the computer tells me it is imagining, as its communication comes to me in greater detail. I may have less ability to define that shared imaginary space--I can't say, "I think there should be a whiskey bottle on the bar, so I pick it up and hit the guy with it" unless in fact the computer has already shown that to be present.

That's probably one of the biggest limitations in CRPGs that make RPG players like me think they're "not real". In a "real" role playing game, we'd have something like this (thoughts in italics):

A fight breaks out as you're standing next to a bar.

I don't have a weapon; I'm in trouble now. What could I use? Is there a whiskey bottle or something like it on the bar?

Hmmm...my notes don't describe the bar, but hey, it's a bar--there's probably something like that on it somewhere, right? Yes, there are several bottles within reach.

I grab one that looks like it has a fair amount of weight to it and a good solid neck, and use it as a club to fight my way through to the door.

A bottle is very like a club; if it doesn't break, he should be able to do significant blunt trauma with it, and if it does break it gives him something more like a knife, with which he can do slashing damage. You move toward the door, and most people try to avoid you as you advance.[/list:u]

Now, the problem with the CRPG appears in the thought processes of the referee. When I ask for a bottle, it (anthropomorphically, perhaps, but effectively nontheless) thinks, My notes don't mention a bottle, so there is no bottle. Obviously, there are ways to program the system so that it will recognize that there would be bottles on the bar, but it's one more detail that would have to be included in an already incredibly burdened program. Then when I say I'm going to use it as a weapon to fight my way through the crowd, it thinks, According to my database, this bottle contains whiskey, an intoxicating beverage which does not harm anyone but causes disorientation if consumed; there are no rules for forcing someone else to consume whiskey, therefore it cannot be done, and this is not useful as a weapon. Again, you can program it to overcome this deficiency--but ultimately you can't program it to overcome every deficiency, and thus you wind up with a player who is limited.

The problem doesn't quite end there, though, it occurs to me. After all, if I'm playing D&D and the referee says, "what's a crenelated battlement" or "what's a portcullis", we tell him what it is and after that he knows. That is, we as players have the ability to cure the deficiencies in each other, to a significant degree. We don't usually have that ability in a CRPG--if the computer doesn't know something, we're stuck with that and have to work around it.

Thus I'd say that a CRPG is like playing a role playing game with a mentally handicapped referee. His limitations are the problem.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: lumpleyInstead of asking "is playing a CRPG roleplaying?" ask "how does roleplaying change when the events of the game happen according to really-truly non-human, non-social arbitration, not consensus?"

The big model can be adapted to describe CRPGs, I'm pretty sure.  But please let's not talk about the "SIS" of a computer game.  It's doing violence to the idea.  Computer games don't have SISs, they have Ss, without the "shared" or the "imaginary."  Using SIS for what computer games have is going to wicked screw up people's grasp on the term.

Hmm, I think it's only going to screw them up by adding more depth to the idea than they need all at once. Recently Ralph gave a good description on how SIS is really only ever IS. Short of mind melding techniques (his apt wording) it's never genuinely shared.

It's best not to think that people who are sitting across from you have some magical method of communicating with you that someone who wrote a game hundreds of miles away and a year ago can't have. It is like the difference between broad band and dial up, but that isn't any magical difference. The people across from you can easily only give you what they want to give you, in terms of creative output. RP doesn't have to involve some moment where they are so hyped they give more than they first intended when they came to the table. Computer games, likewise, don't give more than they first intended when they came to the 'table'.

Quote

Going forward, it seems to me that it'd be especially important to work out how to create meaningful player authorship when the game isn't collaborative.  For random instance, how do you let the player identify which conflicts are interesting and which aren't?

-Vincent

Recently in Grand theft auto: vice city I was doing a vigilante mission. I'd just shot up the crims car so he jumped out. Sadly I was too slow on the uzi spray and he runs up and pulls me out of my car...but this time he jumped into my car and drove off! The damn sports car that was a key to getting viglante done. Dammit, I was screwed!

So the bad guy drives off, but I'd noticed the way they drove around here. I figured I could run up the street and yes, he did turn and start driving down the road toward me. With my M16 I could either blow the car entirely (loosing my key to more vigilante) or take one shot (my sports car was so banged up I'm pretty sure multiple shots would make it blow). So I line up the freakin' hard head shot on this driver of a moving sports car.

See, the coders had contributed a lot of creative material (vigilante mode, baddies who can steal your car, and much more). I'd chosen my conflict of interest, and starting adding my own efforts/creative material to what they had contributed.

Really, without each other it couldn't have happened. What was made was a combination of our creative contributions.

Mutual consent is still there. I've started vigilante only to be pulled out of my car by a cop and busted (loosing the 1K of bullets I bought to do vigilante) ten second in. The reset button was my way of saying no. Not using reset is my way of saying yes/accepting it.

But in the end it was collaborative. I couldn't have done it without their contributing it and it couldn't have happened if I didn't accept their contribution.

And of course, I capped the SOB in the head, grabbed my car and burned out of there. Hot damn! :)

I think this discussion will become more muddled once Fable comes out.  I can see that game as being called a "true" roleplaying game because it will have all the elements of Exploration.  In fact, I think that it will probably be a good argument for what Dr. Xero proposed over in this other thread .  I, for one, am looking forward to playing this particular game.  It's seems like Sim to me... :)

Cheers
Jonathan

QuoteNow, the problem with the CRPG appears in the thought processes of the referee. When I ask for a bottle, it (anthropomorphically, perhaps, but effectively nontheless) thinks, My notes don't mention a bottle, so there is no bottle. Obviously, there are ways to program the system so that it will recognize that there would be bottles on the bar, but it's one more detail that would have to be included in an already incredibly burdened program. Then when I say I'm going to use it as a weapon to fight my way through the crowd, it thinks, According to my database, this bottle contains whiskey, an intoxicating beverage which does not harm anyone but causes disorientation if consumed; there are no rules for forcing someone else to consume whiskey, therefore it cannot be done, and this is not useful as a weapon. Again, you can program it to overcome this deficiency--but ultimately you can't program it to overcome every deficiency, and thus you wind up with a player who is limited.

That is not limitation, that's a lack of having inspired another person. The bar thing looks mundane, so it doesn't look like your inspiring anything from anyone. But you are, the whiskey bottle suggestion is inspiring the GM to add something that wasn't there before, just as an inspiring speach delivered by a player can inspire the GM to add all sorts of things that otherwise wouldn't be there.

Being unable to inspire isn't limitation. That would be like buying a lotto ticket that looses, then saying you lost a million dollars. Buying the ticket is something done with the hope of getting a million dollars. Roleplaying has plenty of hope for mutal inspiration. We 'buy in' with hope of great things. Defining roleplay by saying we always get something we actually just hope for is silly (I realise your not defining it this way, from your latter comments. I'm basically just getting this out of my system :) ). If being unable to inspire someone else (eg, the GM) means its not roleplay, then I've done sessions many would say is (crappy) roleplay, but lack this nessersary inspiration element. Indeed, all games I play in have varying lengthed moments of non inspiration patterned through them.

Quote

The problem doesn't quite end there, though, it occurs to me. After all, if I'm playing D&D and the referee says, "what's a crenelated battlement" or "what's a portcullis", we tell him what it is and after that he knows. That is, we as players have the ability to cure the deficiencies in each other, to a significant degree. We don't usually have that ability in a CRPG--if the computer doesn't know something, we're stuck with that and have to work around it.

I think that's sort of drifting into 'the rules represent the physics of the game world' thought. If something is there but is/could be in the real world, its a defficiency if its not in play. Well really just like the rules are how things are going to be handled and not the physics, the lack of something is what the game is going to have in it, it's not a deficiency.

The bargaining ability of a real GM isn't in question, of course. The thing is, you might even argue with him that the game world is deficient of something. That doesn't actually mean it is deficient, or even can be deficient given it doesn't exist.

Quote

Thus I'd say that a CRPG is like playing a role playing game with a mentally handicapped referee. His limitations are the problem.

I'd say were just spoilt with human refs and take many things for granted. :)

Hmm.  I think that considering the computer in an RPG to be 'thinking' or an active participant is rather stretching the definition a bit.

The computer cannot, no more than can a game of solitaire, interact with you.  It can *react*, but it can never initiate, or feedback into the loop.  It's a clock.  You wind it up, it goes tick tick tick, then it stops.  It will never be anything that it isn't already when it comes off the shelf.

Going by the Lumpley priniciple (as I understand it), there is no System involved.  There is you, and there is a single Authority to which you refer - you refer to it a lot - but it can never negotiate, offer, or reject.  All it can do is be refered to.

The computer does not think (anthropomorphically or otherwise) "my notes don't mention a bottle" it states "Invalid command: Object bottle not recognized."  Nowadays it will do so much more smoothly, but it's still ultimately not a offer/counteroffer format - it's an error message.

I think there's a lot of good meat on the similarities between RPG's and CRPG's, and see no particular reason that CRPG's couldn't be discussed on the Forge - a lot of the design challenges from a publishing point of view are, I suspect, startlingly similar - but I think it is misleading to conflate the two.  Roleplaying is fundamentally a social interaction between people and computer gaming is fundamentally not.

James

What if the CRPG's database did know what a bottle was, just not that a bar was likely to have a bunch of them.  So you want to pick up a bottle and head for the door?  Tell it the bar is loaded with bottles!

OK, I know that's not how the games we're mostly thinking about work, but why not?  What if, as the player, you can create such world-building linkages?  That's not hard to imagine, code, or play.  There could be any number of mechanics devised to facilitate such inclusion -- all of them better and more meaningful if the game is in some way multi-player (even if indirectly and asychronously -- the DB/world is shared while instances of play are solitaire).  I like the idea of having a number of assurance or reification points that can be spent to add "reality weight" to a player-introduced fact and having them regenerate over time.

In the recent rash of System discussions, one thing that came out of the discussion was the proposal that the individual imagined space was really just being synchronized by System.  I think that's a superior vision, if not startlingly different.  Given that, and given some system for altering what the computer (as an agent of the author -- a real person) knows about the in-game reality, I think you do have an imagined space that is being constantly sychronized by whatever the System includes.  And this is exponentially more true if it's a multiplayer game -- in the traditional sense or even as described above.

Computers today do not think in any meaningful way.  But already they create.  Artificial life algorithms can produce new and interesting bits of order from chaos.  And I have yet to read anything convincing to suggest that our brains are more than very, very complex computers.  Even if your brain is a clock, as James put it, it appears to be good enough for our purposes, so why assume that other computers won't get there?

Chris