Just what IS roleplaying?

[Skorpios]

A valid point indeed, Saint_Proverbius, but not alas the core of my argument. My example was describing the inflexibility of computers as a whole, not the deficiencies of any particular system. Designers can still implement skills like climb and swim, but what does the computer do if a player then wants to toboggan down the steps of the Temple of Pain? Or blow bubbles to distract some orcs?

This is possible for a player in a live session, but impossible on a computer, without the designers pre-scripting it.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

CYOA: yeah, i remember those. Used to buy them, and had quite a collection until about issue 25 or so, then I realized they just weren't making them as good anymore (CYOA: Going to the bathroom). I did like the d&d based spinoffs, I can still recall one with a beige cover and a bone dragon....damn, wish i could remember the title...I remember getting it not long after The Keep on the Borderlands. Jackson(Steve?) did one set that were pretty heavy on dice, and were supposed to be a continuous series...

Giving the player the ability to climb in alot of games removes the effect of the obstacles that serve to constrict the player's ability to move out of the current play area. I don't think it's any limitation of technology, or of programming, I think they just prefer to leave out climbing because taking it out would mean the player could go anywhere and would make things that much more difficult for play balancing.

That was one of the things early games seem to do a better job of: There seemed to be less things restricting your movement, so if you chose to go somewhere way above your level, you were probably dead. It made it much more interesting getting somewhere when you knew that you might not survive the trip. Now, in most games, you'd be hard pressed to find difficult combat outside of boss battles because everything seems tailored to your level.

 

[Elwro]

. Jackson(Steve?) did one set that were pretty heavy on dice, and were supposed to be a continuous series...

Yes, Steve Jackson, the creator of GURPS. The series was called Fighting Fantasy or sth.

Giving the player the ability to climb in alot of games removes the effect of the obstacles that serve to constrict the player's ability to move out of the current play area. I don't think it's any limitation of technology, or of programming, I think they just prefer to leave out climbing because taking it out would mean the player could go anywhere and would make things that much more difficult for play balancing.

Yes, but that's the whole problem: how to balance the restrictions so that the player doesnt think "lame designers" but "let's go somewhere else".

 

[Rabby]

Still thinking about fine-tuning the game for individual users -- have there been games that track the playing pattern of the user? Say, if the user has a high preference for fire-based spells, then adjust upcoming combat encounters to include more fire-resistant critters. Or, if the user has a preference for kicking bunnies and killing random squirrels, then include quests that involve animal-torture (even can be rationalized as some sort of reputation-based system: "Hey, I saw your whack the stuffing out of that kitten over there. Y'know, there's this animal-rights group that really ticks me off. . . "). This might be somewhat of an approximation for DMs who throw a wrench inside a smoothly-rolling habit-pattern on purpose. Maybe this might make the game more strategy-inducive.

The 'system' you've described is a pretty good one for something we already have: a live DM.

I think one of the ways that a computer can surpass a live DM would be in its sheer volume of knowledge -- kind of like stuffing in all 5 main programmers into the skin of one person. An individual is always limited by the things he KNOW, but a computer can just keep absorbing information indefinitely. For example, a game involving travel between various planes and making references to existing characters in fantasy novels would benefit from a whole bunch of ideas with more than one person as the source. Maybe Cim Tain doesn't know about Lubby the Alchemist from the Iron Flask series, but Sosh Jawyer contributes that particular piece of information to the game, and tickles the Iron Flask fans pink with the reference. While the point about computers breaking rules is simply difficult to even imagine overcoming, I think this is one area where CRPGs could excel. Well. . . admittedly, since it's not a spontaneous reaction, the result is much less exciting than an omniscient DM. . .

I think the sad part is that publishers think that bitmap scrolling engines are more what people want than tile engines.

Is this what the Fallout seris used? While it's clear that every character occupied one tile, it's unclear to me whether the environment was also under this restriction. Did the walls actually occupy 1 tile each? The tables and chests? If it did, then that's some amazing artwork for me not to even have noticed it. But if it didn't, would the tile engine that you're referring to actually treat every object as something that must occupy at least one tile? I'm having flashbacks of earlier first-person-perspective games where each movement jerked to the next grid box.

 

[Skorpios]

[THINKING REALLY HARD] *waves to Elwro*

I guess it has to do with rising expectations of players. Every new game has to give some experience that the previous game didn't. If you are still using the same basic ruleset (eg D&D) then it comes down to more and more scripting of 'special' encounters. Then you have the difficulty of balancing them and timing them. The designers really DON'T want your first level character wandering into their cunningly contrived encounter that has been carefully scripted and tweaked to challenge a level 8 character, so they place more controls on where your character can go in the early stages of the game. This increases the sense of linearity and lack of choice that the player suffers from.

I think it might also involve the 'frustration factor' that seems to loom large in the designers' thinking as you say Elwro. They don't want the player's character constantly dying just because he takes a wrong turn in the forest and then giving up in disgust, so they lead the player by the hand to 'suitable' locations as the game progresses.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

I think it might also involve the 'frustration factor' that seems to loom large in the designers' thinking as you say Elwro. They don't want the player's character constantly dying just because he takes a wrong turn in the forest and then giving up in disgust, so they lead the player by the hand to 'suitable' locations as the game progresses.

Certainly a behaviour that's not unique to CRPGs...Fans of FPSs and Simulations have been disappointed by the 'dumbing down' of their genres too.

 

[Skorpios]

It's almost like an 'industry' effect. Back in the dawn of the automotive industry, cars were made from hand-crafted parts and driving was an 'experience'. Now they are all churned off assembly lines by robots and all look the same and handle the same, with so many safety features even a 'moron' can drive.

A similar thing happens in movies - early silent movies had twice as much story as modern blockbusters, which again follow a cookie-cutter mentality ruled by 'focus groups' so that EVERY movie whether it be sci-fi, horror, action or whatever has to have a romance to appeal to the 15-25 female demographic. It is only independent films that seem to have anything interesting to say.

I guess we are seeing a similar 'evolution' in computer games.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I think Skorpios is right about nearly all forms of media being dumbed down. Even books these days are dumbed down. Sixty years ago, kids were reading Tolkien, now it's Harry Potter. I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books, but the movies were friggin' awful and ultimately predictable if you've ever read any fairy tales.

However, when I was mentioning about the climb and swim things, it is possible to create the illusion of being more free than the game actually allows. You're most certainly not going to create this illusion by starting with a type of engine that limits what can and can't be easily implimented from the start.

 

[Astromarine]

Well, Saint, the logical conclusion of this is that the best system for an RPG would be a realistic-physics 3D system, kinda like the Half-life engine. Does this mean that the perfect RPG in terms of physical abilities of the character would be VtM:Bloodlines?

Also, for the Fighting Fantasy books. They were indeed made by SJ, but NOT, repeat NOT, the one from GURPS. One is a Brit, the other is American. Apples and Oranges, and they both resent cross-fanmail.

In all seriousness, in my mind, I agree with Skorpy on the comparison between CRPGs and CYoA, to a point. I think it's somewhat BETWEEN a CYOA and an RPG. the best analogy I can think of is that a GOOD CRPG is like the collection of notes a GM brings to the table before the game starts.

A CYOA defines two things. A world setting, complete with a list (in the writer's head) of locations, people, items, etc, AND a tree of ocurrences designed to take the player from one point to the other of the events through a limited number of paths.

A full-fledged RPG has the same world setting, complete with list of locations, people, items, etc. Furthermore, the GM knows, when he sits at a table, that some locations or people have attached a sequence of events designed to let the players tackle it. but there is no set path *between* locations. There is a freedom to tackle the different locations at will. Of course, the one unimplementable thing kicks in when the game starts, which is the players find an infinite number of not-foreseen possibilities.

The main difference, in my mind, is that the encounters in a CYOA are all stringed together, start to finish. You cannot jump from the end of one situation to the beginning of a totally separate situation if it doesn't lay directly ahead of the first one in the path the player is on. On an RPG world, though, even assuming the players will NOT deviate from the GM's plan, they can jump from the Ruins of Myth Drannor to the Underdark to Baldur's Gate to the Sunset Mountains. There is no link between these separate locations/situations, and the players can choose between them. More importantly, after finishing one, they can start any other.

With the current level of technology, this is the range of possibilities in terms of world construction.

1) One linear path (computer adventure, book)
2) Several possible paths, with one beginning, one end, and some divergent paths in the middle (BG, NWN, lots more, CYOA)
3) Several possible paths, with one beginning, several ends, and lots of interconnections in the middle (no single "choice" leads to a specific end, instead the player can follow the branches liberally and choose the end only AT the end. (Ultima 7, more?)
4) Several possible paths, but with multiple beginnings, multiple endings, and multiple ways to go from start to stop. think of it as several threads, with connections between the threads all over the place. (Basically only one example: ToEE)
5) No concept of "paths". The world is defined, and several small "threads" of events are placed around the world, including one which is more focussed on (the main story). The order in which the player starts the threads, and even WHICH he chooses to start are completely up to him. (Fallouts, Arcanum, Morrowind, Daggerfall)

I feel all of the above can be done in a CYOA except the last, and 4 will struggle. So CRPGs AT THEIR BEST beat CYOAs

 

[Elwro]

Also, for the Fighting Fantasy books. They were indeed made by SJ, but NOT, repeat NOT, the one from GURPS.

My goodness. And I was so sure about it. Thanks!

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

The main difference, in my mind, is that the encounters in a CYOA are all stringed together, start to finish. You cannot jump from the end of one situation to the beginning of a totally separate situation if it doesn't lay directly ahead of the first one in the path the player is on. On an RPG world, though, even assuming the players will NOT deviate from the GM's plan, they can jump from the Ruins of Myth Drannor to the Underdark to Baldur's Gate to the Sunset Mountains. There is no link between these separate locations/situations, and the players can choose between them. More importantly, after finishing one, they can start any other.

A difference though is that in CYOAs there were ways to lose, and various ways to win. Though often there weren't too many paths, in the good ones there'd be several reasonable-to-good endings. CRPGs generally have one ending, though some of them dress it up differently to make it appear like multiple endings.

1) One linear path (computer adventure, book)
2) Several possible paths, with one beginning, one end, and some divergent paths in the middle (BG, NWN, lots more, CYOA)
3) Several possible paths, with one beginning, several ends, and lots of interconnections in the middle (no single "choice" leads to a specific end, instead the player can follow the branches liberally and choose the end only AT the end. (Ultima 7, more?)
4) Several possible paths, but with multiple beginnings, multiple endings, and multiple ways to go from start to stop. think of it as several threads, with connections between the threads all over the place. (Basically only one example: ToEE)
5) No concept of "paths". The world is defined, and several small "threads" of events are placed around the world, including one which is more focussed on (the main story). The order in which the player starts the threads, and even WHICH he chooses to start are completely up to him. (Fallouts, Arcanum, Morrowind, Daggerfall)

hmmm...I wouldn't say Arcanum or Fo2 had no concept of paths, and I would tend to lump them in with #3. Both games really required you to take those paths to level up to a point where you wouldn't get killed every 5 secs. I don't know morrowind or daggerfall, so i can't really comment on them...

until a game is created that actually take time into effect, there wouldn't be such a thing as a pathless game. All you're doing in any of the above is stepping off the path for a bit: since time doesn't move, and the plot doesn't resolve itself, the game hangs in stasis until the player jumps on the main path again...

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, Saint, the logical conclusion of this is that the best system for an RPG would be a realistic-physics 3D system, kinda like the Half-life engine. Does this mean that the perfect RPG in terms of physical abilities of the character would be VtM:Bloodlines?

Only if you have half baked logic. Physics systems don't really have that much place in a CRPG, because skills determine what goes on more than Newton's Laws. The wall climbing thing is a perfect example of this. With a high climbing ability, you can ignore the fact that the center of mass on any climber is extended further out than the plane of friction he's dealing with, and thus is able to scale smoother and more uniform surfaces.

Likewise, an average human male can probably only pack 40lbs over long distances, and even then, he'll be fatiqued. Each step he takes will is not only moving his typical weight, but about 20% more than that, over a lengthy amount of time.

Momentum and impact force of a shotgun slug would say that any human hit with one, regardless of armor, would get knocked on his ass as fast as he could fall over. An impact like that to the center of the torso would also likely cause the diaphragm to spasm, resulting in that player being out of commission until such time as the diaphragm starts working normally again.

I'm hardly advocating realistic physics at all when I'm saying tile engines would allow a player to do more because as the above points out, realistic physics is severely limiting. It might like cute on the feature list, but chances are that realistic physics would be only in a few areas and certainly wouldn't be a completely accurate model.

 

[Astromarine]

First point: fuck off, it was a joke. Sheesh, some people.

As for the serious point: Sure, a decently free-form RPG would depend on the objects in the game world having a consistent representation in the game system. A wall can't be climbed over unless the game sees it as a wall in some levels, not as a painting with some boundaries behind it. The same can, of course, be said of all other objects. I didn't play it much, but I thikn the most interactive RPGs of the latest years were Arx and Gothic, right? Both used a 3D model, because they can then call a jug a jug, and a fireplace a fireplace. It makes perfect sense, and is one of the biggest reasons for moving away from bitmap games. Then there's NWN, which managed to implement a 3D tile based engine that had NONE of this. Aah, don't we just love sheer competence?

Now that I gave you your point, that I never seriously disputed before, can your "Grr Argh" mental block allow you to pass the flippant comment into the rest of my post?

Astro

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Only if you have half baked logic. Physics systems don't really have that much place in a CRPG, because skills determine what goes on more than Newton's Laws. The wall climbing thing is a perfect example of this. With a high climbing ability, you can ignore the fact that the center of mass on any climber is extended further out than the plane of friction he's dealing with, and thus is able to scale smoother and more uniform surfaces.

I think of those numbers as an abstract method of dealing with reality (and physics). Wall climbing skill might mean a variety of things: from being experienced, to carrying things to assist you in a climb (chalk, rope, proper footwear), to knowing little tricks like keeping your body closer to the surface you're climbing, to properly determining a path to climb.

Likewise, an average human male can probably only pack 40lbs over long distances, and even then, he'll be fatiqued. Each step he takes will is not only moving his typical weight, but about 20% more than that, over a lengthy amount of time.

Certainly, but soldiers now(and in the past, like legionaires) typically train with packs in excess of 50 lbs, plus the weight of their weapon(s), helmet and such. I think armor <b>really</b> needs to be looked at realistically in a (c)rpg world: do you want protection or speed? So many just allow a player to don a 100 lb suit of plate and go bounding around the wilderness(and even swim)..ridiculous..

Momentum and impact force of a shotgun slug would say that any human hit with one, regardless of armor, would get knocked on his ass as fast as he could fall over. An impact like that to the center of the torso would also likely cause the diaphragm to spasm, resulting in that player being out of commission until such time as the diaphragm starts working normally again.

Again, we're dealing with abstraction. You could say that a shotgun does 20 pts of damage - a shot that takes a level 1 player full in the chest and rips him apart. A 4rth level player, with experience entitling him to 23 hp, sees the barrel rising and starts to evade and the same shot tears into his arm and shoulder - still grievously injured, but not quite dead yet...

I'm hardly advocating realistic physics at all when I'm saying tile engines would allow a player to do more because as the above points out, realistic physics is severely limiting. It might like cute on the feature list, but chances are that realistic physics would be only in a few areas and certainly wouldn't be a completely accurate model.

I'd never advocate for a completely realistic physics model, but I would like to see more realistic physics....

 

[Psilon]

Sorry, but "realistic physics" inevitably equates to crate-stacking. See Deus Ex and Trespasser for examples, and probably the upcoming Half-Life 2 as well.

 

[Voss]

Mario will be with us, always.

One reason why I'm glad most RPGs leave out jump and climb skills.

Damn jumping 'puzzles'

 

[JanC]

Damn jumping 'puzzles'

Yeah, rememer Ultima 8. I had a very slow machine for that. Iit ran so slow it almost qualified as turn based. There were these rocks you had to jump on over lava. Nightmare.

 

[Skorpios]

Saint_Proverbius - I have read the Harry Potter books and I don't think they are a good example of 'dumbing down'. Their appeal is due to one thing and one thing only - and that is good writing - it still happens sometimes.

You can't really compare Tolkien and Harry Potter for very obvious reasons - they were written for different audiences for a start. Tolkien basically wrote LOTR for himself and his colleagues. LOTR is a combination of his love of history, legend and language and in many ways it reads more like a history book than a 'fantasy' novel. Its appeal for many of us is the sheer consistency of the world which he created. With so much detail and thought poured into it, Middle Earth is a unique creation - that will never be equalled. One testament to its depth is that subsequent generations of writers, directors and game designers have been able to dip into that well and create 'shadow worlds' that still manage to entertain and enthrall us decades later.

Also, judging a book by its movie adaptation is rarely a wise move - even worse than judging it by the cover!

The Harry Potter books on the other hand have an entirely different focus to LOTR. As the titles suggest this is a series about a boy - a very special boy - surround by magic and mystery, yes, but also tortured by a horrendous homelife and the problems that plagues us ALL as we grew up. The kind of detail that Tolkien poured into his 'external' world of Middle Earth, J.K. Rowling pours into her 'internal' world of Harry Potter and his journey through adolescence. That is why the books are so popular, not just because of any hype or 'dumbing down' because most children see through that BS just as quickly as we do, especially after 5 books. Harry Potter works because children can see the truths of Harry's life every day within their own lives, as well as seizing the opportunity of escaping those sometimes dark realities into Harry's world of magic and wonder.

I think you'd be presently surprised by the depth of the Harry Potter books. Basically, if you spent any time as a child, there will be something that resonates with you.

Although I have drifted off-topic, haven't I?

I guess there is always going to be a tension between 'realism' and 'immersion' in RPGs. Like Tolkien you want to create a believable world, but simply doing that doesn't always create excitement or an interesting story. Humans have always been fascinated by 'fantasy' stories that totally contradict the reality all around them.

 

[Voss]

Tolkien doesn't read anything like a work of history.
It focuses too much on individuals for that. More like a folk tale really...

And calling it a believable world is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Its all at the top level- no infrastructure or day to day existence really comes across. He never gives any indication of how these people actually manage to live. Again, a lot like a folk tale.

 

[Skorpios]

That's why I compare it to a history book (ancient history where not all details are known). It often focusses on the movements of armies and kings more than individuals in many cases. Frodo being the obvious exception but then he IS the ringbearer.

Also, I didn't say 'believable', I said consistent. I just meant the level of detail makes it very hard to accept Middle Earth as 'just' fiction.