I see what you are saying catch and I do agree. An RPG should be much more than a battle system with stats. Personally I think the best RPG that really lets you roleplay ie make your own decisions (Albeit they be black and white or dark and light as the case may be) is Knights of the Old Republic.
I think that it would be a great idea to implement the type of Role Playing you are talking about, but in a single player (ie non MMO) CRPG, I just dont see that kind of system being implemented. The Idea is great, the implementation...thats another story. It seems that, like terlenth said, we would need to have some advances in AI first. It is something to think about though, no doubt about that.
RPG Stats Concept Game Design
Quote:I think that it would be a great idea to implement the type of Role Playing you are talking about, but in a single player (ie non MMO) CRPG, I just dont see that kind of system being implemented.
I think you're rather right about that, at least for now. The stuff I'm talking about is unquestionably geared toward multiplayer.
Anyone read about Chris Crawford's story telling system? I really don't know if he's still working on it, but from a designer point of view, it's pretty extraordinary.
Then again, any would be designer should take a browse through his library.
Clicky
I agree with DrEvil on the D20 point.
** Warning I'm long winded here **
Popularity does not equal quality.
Popularity is based on marketing.
Successful marketing does not make something good.
"Mark Hughes"
Does everyone remember Daikatana?
The big reason why other people say that D&D/D20 is bad AND pushes it on people, is becuase they don't want to see someone using a inferior system when there are superior systems out there, and some are for FREE. And then you also get jerks.
D20 is NOT a computer, it DOES NOT need as much work for another
system to work. THERE IS NO waiting times in pen & papers games to develope new equipment.
What would people rather use Microsoft or Linux(if Linux had just as much software support)
If your looking for a similiar rule system check out Fusion from http://www.talsorian.com/. It's FREE the core rule system is based on the same premise. But the stat base is lower there are no classes or levels. And if you do like those then there easy to implement. Both systems work off a linear advancement. But everything past the basics are different. Fusion differes in advacement and experience gaining. They don't focus on just combat in there rules. D20 big problems is that it's orientation towards "role playing" is barely more than Diablo2. Everthing about advancment is about killing things better.
BUT, I'm going on the assumption that you want to make a combat rpg. So no more on this part of the subject. On to alternatives.
Here are my suggestions
1. Stat should NOT be linear.
Pro: You don't need stat increasing alot if at all.
Players tend to do better in there givin attribute.
Con: It's not as showy and feels less rewarding.
Attributes have little effect on small increases.
Example: Using linear values is absurd, people attributes
don't range in such drastic manner. Diablo and such games
are horrid examples of this. They do this becuase it generaly
replaces skills. D20 fails becuase the attributes are worthless
at later levels.
Personal: While my favorite system uses 10 primary and 5 derived, I found that 5 is suitable.
Body: Stringth, Stamina, Size
Alertness: Dexterity, Agility, Perception
Mind: Knowledge, Intelligence
Charisma: Creativity(Wits), Influence, Appearance
Spirit Willpower, Chi/Ki
2. I'm Conan why can't I sneak(The Class Restriction Rule)
While this is easily avoided, the old D&D had this problem
and many crpg still are stuck on this.
They make no sence except in the idea of restricted linear
advancment. BUT people like to show off there class level and here the WOW effect. Best thing you could do is a Final Fantasy Tactics approach. Classes are open to you. Once you level up you
choose the class with no restriction or penalty. D20 does penalize you for to many classes, it's enforced becuase of the 1st level class bonuses. If you want to do class tree like needing Thief for certain skills then open other class tree Ninja or Assasin go for it. But don't block the root classes. These are just abstract roleplaying to RULE playing concepts. Theoreticly all skills are open, and if it's a secret skill it's blocked becuase your not affiliated with teachers. Anyone can sneak, but can everyone learn Ninjustsu(The art of Stealh) no becuase it's a clan secret, if you can join you can learn it.
3.Pound Me Again Rule(HitPoints) or
I show my awsomeness by shooting myself in the Head
There design flaw assumes that you will be hitting and getting hit very often. That is realy stupid. If you want to make combat intense throw it out. Use a wounding threshold, or a preset HP level that applies to everything. All things can only take 20 damage. Allow potential modifers to that. Armour to soak and have the ability to evade.
Armour reduces sucsfell Hit Damage, while Evading reduces damage to the area. a Heart Strike instead hits the side of the arm.
Unless you want to do Dragon Ball Z fights, fiction is based on smart use of ones talents, and combat talents deal with NOT getting hit. My suggestion is to read Taltos or anything with Melee combat. No one has the ability to be struck solidly by a Broadsword and laugh it off. Even in DBZ if Goku said just hit be with your Long Sword Trunks, he would still be seriously hospitlized if he lived. Weapons are lethal, linear HP advancment spoils this. This also leads to the My sword is Better thatn your sword. If you realy want to do this make magical weapons special by giving them extra effects, don't jsut increase there innate stats in a linear fashion. All you want to tdo is, Rusty, Normal, Masterwork. If you want some Metal differences go ahead.
4. My Attack was perfection but it bounced off his hair
(Margin of Success determination.)
D20 has taken the Binary route. Success or Fail.
Some systems link your performance to how well you roll
In combat terms Binary generaly takes the stance of an attack roll then a damage roll.
Where as the other idea, if you attack well you do more damage.
The difficulty is determined by either there parry or dodge.
This then leads to point 5.
It's also dealt in one roll.
Example: Longsword x8. If I hit you for 3 Mos then I do 24. If your using threshold compare, if you use HP then reduce.
5. To be Hit or Not to be Hit(Armour vs Dodging)
This realtes to 4. People in heavy armour don't dodge as well. So
the theory is that they will take more hits, just less damage. Where as the Dodger will evade the hits. Both reduce damage just in differnt ways. While this is ok to abstract weaponary effects
fall apart. What if the weapon has a enchament of touch or poison.
D20 fails becuase of the abstraction of the hit, it assumes may have hit even if the roll failed, the hit just didnt do enough damage. Where as the other way you actualy know if you
connect or not and apply the effect or not.
6. How to Make Heroes
The Zelda and all it's clones and City of heroes
Well with all the stuff i've mentioned the players are also put on the lethal ground. This isnt exactly fun for them. If there getting killed just as fast as the npc's they fight. Here are two solutions(there are more but I can only think of 2).
1. Survival/Combat/Emergency Pool. This pool is generated by doing certain actions. Quests, community participation or combat, what ever. Whenever a player is going to get seriously injured some of the points are spent to stop making the situation as bad.
A fail is still a fail, but a Fumble is now just a fail. Once this pool runs out they fall under the same rules as the npc's.
Once the pool runds dry it's time to leave and refill it some way.
Personal Note: I thought of this rule as a derived rule from spending xp/kharma/Emerency so ect. In a computer game though players will find a way to abuse it, so my idea for my rpg was that the only way to get them wre to do community activity, doing a job, or going around using Trade Skills. This was to slow down
the raw combat of the game and get everyone to the aspect of building a home, based on a Apocolyptic world.
2. Inspiration(The Zelda and City of Heroes Rule)
As players defeat enemies they gain a quick bonus, either in the way of increased health, magic, stamina, defence, attack or even extra actions/speed.
Both offer to make gameplay more action orientated and not as slow.
"The crulest dream, reality"
The Offspring
** Warning I'm long winded here **
Popularity does not equal quality.
Popularity is based on marketing.
Successful marketing does not make something good.
"Mark Hughes"
Does everyone remember Daikatana?
The big reason why other people say that D&D/D20 is bad AND pushes it on people, is becuase they don't want to see someone using a inferior system when there are superior systems out there, and some are for FREE. And then you also get jerks.
D20 is NOT a computer, it DOES NOT need as much work for another
system to work. THERE IS NO waiting times in pen & papers games to develope new equipment.
What would people rather use Microsoft or Linux(if Linux had just as much software support)
If your looking for a similiar rule system check out Fusion from http://www.talsorian.com/. It's FREE the core rule system is based on the same premise. But the stat base is lower there are no classes or levels. And if you do like those then there easy to implement. Both systems work off a linear advancement. But everything past the basics are different. Fusion differes in advacement and experience gaining. They don't focus on just combat in there rules. D20 big problems is that it's orientation towards "role playing" is barely more than Diablo2. Everthing about advancment is about killing things better.
BUT, I'm going on the assumption that you want to make a combat rpg. So no more on this part of the subject. On to alternatives.
Here are my suggestions
1. Stat should NOT be linear.
Pro: You don't need stat increasing alot if at all.
Players tend to do better in there givin attribute.
Con: It's not as showy and feels less rewarding.
Attributes have little effect on small increases.
Example: Using linear values is absurd, people attributes
don't range in such drastic manner. Diablo and such games
are horrid examples of this. They do this becuase it generaly
replaces skills. D20 fails becuase the attributes are worthless
at later levels.
Personal: While my favorite system uses 10 primary and 5 derived, I found that 5 is suitable.
Body: Stringth, Stamina, Size
Alertness: Dexterity, Agility, Perception
Mind: Knowledge, Intelligence
Charisma: Creativity(Wits), Influence, Appearance
Spirit Willpower, Chi/Ki
2. I'm Conan why can't I sneak(The Class Restriction Rule)
While this is easily avoided, the old D&D had this problem
and many crpg still are stuck on this.
They make no sence except in the idea of restricted linear
advancment. BUT people like to show off there class level and here the WOW effect. Best thing you could do is a Final Fantasy Tactics approach. Classes are open to you. Once you level up you
choose the class with no restriction or penalty. D20 does penalize you for to many classes, it's enforced becuase of the 1st level class bonuses. If you want to do class tree like needing Thief for certain skills then open other class tree Ninja or Assasin go for it. But don't block the root classes. These are just abstract roleplaying to RULE playing concepts. Theoreticly all skills are open, and if it's a secret skill it's blocked becuase your not affiliated with teachers. Anyone can sneak, but can everyone learn Ninjustsu(The art of Stealh) no becuase it's a clan secret, if you can join you can learn it.
3.Pound Me Again Rule(HitPoints) or
I show my awsomeness by shooting myself in the Head
There design flaw assumes that you will be hitting and getting hit very often. That is realy stupid. If you want to make combat intense throw it out. Use a wounding threshold, or a preset HP level that applies to everything. All things can only take 20 damage. Allow potential modifers to that. Armour to soak and have the ability to evade.
Armour reduces sucsfell Hit Damage, while Evading reduces damage to the area. a Heart Strike instead hits the side of the arm.
Unless you want to do Dragon Ball Z fights, fiction is based on smart use of ones talents, and combat talents deal with NOT getting hit. My suggestion is to read Taltos or anything with Melee combat. No one has the ability to be struck solidly by a Broadsword and laugh it off. Even in DBZ if Goku said just hit be with your Long Sword Trunks, he would still be seriously hospitlized if he lived. Weapons are lethal, linear HP advancment spoils this. This also leads to the My sword is Better thatn your sword. If you realy want to do this make magical weapons special by giving them extra effects, don't jsut increase there innate stats in a linear fashion. All you want to tdo is, Rusty, Normal, Masterwork. If you want some Metal differences go ahead.
4. My Attack was perfection but it bounced off his hair
(Margin of Success determination.)
D20 has taken the Binary route. Success or Fail.
Some systems link your performance to how well you roll
In combat terms Binary generaly takes the stance of an attack roll then a damage roll.
Where as the other idea, if you attack well you do more damage.
The difficulty is determined by either there parry or dodge.
This then leads to point 5.
It's also dealt in one roll.
Example: Longsword x8. If I hit you for 3 Mos then I do 24. If your using threshold compare, if you use HP then reduce.
5. To be Hit or Not to be Hit(Armour vs Dodging)
This realtes to 4. People in heavy armour don't dodge as well. So
the theory is that they will take more hits, just less damage. Where as the Dodger will evade the hits. Both reduce damage just in differnt ways. While this is ok to abstract weaponary effects
fall apart. What if the weapon has a enchament of touch or poison.
D20 fails becuase of the abstraction of the hit, it assumes may have hit even if the roll failed, the hit just didnt do enough damage. Where as the other way you actualy know if you
connect or not and apply the effect or not.
6. How to Make Heroes
The Zelda and all it's clones and City of heroes
Well with all the stuff i've mentioned the players are also put on the lethal ground. This isnt exactly fun for them. If there getting killed just as fast as the npc's they fight. Here are two solutions(there are more but I can only think of 2).
1. Survival/Combat/Emergency Pool. This pool is generated by doing certain actions. Quests, community participation or combat, what ever. Whenever a player is going to get seriously injured some of the points are spent to stop making the situation as bad.
A fail is still a fail, but a Fumble is now just a fail. Once this pool runs out they fall under the same rules as the npc's.
Once the pool runds dry it's time to leave and refill it some way.
Personal Note: I thought of this rule as a derived rule from spending xp/kharma/Emerency so ect. In a computer game though players will find a way to abuse it, so my idea for my rpg was that the only way to get them wre to do community activity, doing a job, or going around using Trade Skills. This was to slow down
the raw combat of the game and get everyone to the aspect of building a home, based on a Apocolyptic world.
2. Inspiration(The Zelda and City of Heroes Rule)
As players defeat enemies they gain a quick bonus, either in the way of increased health, magic, stamina, defence, attack or even extra actions/speed.
Both offer to make gameplay more action orientated and not as slow.
"The crulest dream, reality"
The Offspring
d20 as a system isn't all that bad. It's just hard to role-play with, unless you're playing with a good group. If you have a good group who understands where the rules can be bent or changed to make the game more fun, then d20 is an excellent way to start, because it's so easy to use. I haven't checked out the site you posted, but I intend to. Different ideas are always nice.
True anyone can roleplay with any system. Stage actors do this all the time, and they don't use dice. Depending on the group, GM, and setting you can do heavy role playing with Hero Quest from Milton Bradley. What it comes down to is how much the troupe want to use the dice. Role Master was all about Dice. I like to mix and match, if they act well they get a bonus(Based on personal acting experiance and effort).
D20 is ok if you want straight drawn out fights, but it's not supportive to imaganitive combat. If your mixing role & rule playing. And almost if not all the FEATS are orientated straight towards the combat adventure. I don't recall any social, mnechanical, or various such FEATS. I have seen a attempt at it with Star Wars. But a good rule system doesnt havent to make "Exception Rules" to be able to perform basic stuff. Why should the Thief be the only one to do more damage based on Sneaking. By common sence and a MOS based system as long as the character can strike with the victim not knowing, it's a powerfull strike. It's just only those with the Sneak Skill will do it well. And opened based system don't restrict you.
So it is a fine system if you want to bend or expect certain things from it. But when you want to merge them, D20 still fails.
But I won't mention anymore on it. I gave some sugestions in my post above for rpg ideas and stats.
"I have a Big Mouth"
Bugs Bunny?
D20 is ok if you want straight drawn out fights, but it's not supportive to imaganitive combat. If your mixing role & rule playing. And almost if not all the FEATS are orientated straight towards the combat adventure. I don't recall any social, mnechanical, or various such FEATS. I have seen a attempt at it with Star Wars. But a good rule system doesnt havent to make "Exception Rules" to be able to perform basic stuff. Why should the Thief be the only one to do more damage based on Sneaking. By common sence and a MOS based system as long as the character can strike with the victim not knowing, it's a powerfull strike. It's just only those with the Sneak Skill will do it well. And opened based system don't restrict you.
So it is a fine system if you want to bend or expect certain things from it. But when you want to merge them, D20 still fails.
But I won't mention anymore on it. I gave some sugestions in my post above for rpg ideas and stats.
"I have a Big Mouth"
Bugs Bunny?
Catch-
There are two basic schools of philosophy when it comes to roleplaying. You can either come from the "Roleplaying is like improv drama...the less rules that get in the way of my narration and scene description, the better!", or you can come from the school that says roleplaying games were derived from historical miniature games and therefore rolplaying is merely the the simulation of how character would be defined in a given rules-system and setting.
The people who lean towards the improv school feel that qualification doesn't come from quantification. In other words, numbers are far too concrete and don't truly represent the abstract qualities that storytelling requires. People in this school of thought tend to prefer "rules-lite" systems that encourage character or story driven settings that emphasize not so how much how the cause-effect relationship is achieved (via rules), but rather the choices that are made by the player. In other words, it focuses on the subjective human element.
In contrast, the wargame lineage crowd falls into two camps. On one side, you have the gamists who feel that the objective quantifiable rules are there solely to achieve victory conditions. These victory conditions ultimately are all that matter because winning is what playing a game is all about. While roleplaying is famous for not having "winning and losing", it shows up in RPG's as the quest for more treasure, bigger weapons, higher level skills. These are sought after as an end unto themselves, rather than as a means to another character goal.
The other camp are the simulationists. They, like the improv group are interested in the psychological human element and the story that is weaved. But they are also concerned with the contextual framework that causes things to happen. In other words, how and why things work out the way they do are important. Therefore numbers to qualify things are necessary to make sense of why things happened the way they did. Rules should be consistent, logical and realistic given the setting of the game world. This is what sets them apart from the gamists, who care about rules mainly for the conditions that will allow them to achieve victory (for these people, victory is the above mentioned leveling up, power or money). For the simulationists, balance isn't always required, as long as it accurately portrays the causal relationships of the gameworld.
Personally, I feel that simulationism is the way to go. When I've played with the improv types, I've always wondered why they even bothered with rules at all. They seem to want to act out and create stories with little heed to how plausible something might be. I've often thought they should simply do improv drama or adlibbed group stories. Afterall, what this type of player wants is really an interesting story to weave. And it is often the telling of the tale rather than the tale itself that is entertaining.
For the gamists, I see their desire to win without looking at the human element to be a harmless sort of greed. It is very one-dimensional and only promotes a sense of reflection on the real world that the only thing that matters is power, money and influence.
So that leaves the Simulationists. I think it's a good balance of wanting to understand the human condition with realizing that the rules of the system are a constraint to exploring some issues. For example, we all want to be the hero in the story right? So why not scream at the top of your lungs and charage headlong into that MG42 nest to take out the fiendish Nazi stooges that mowed down your friends? Well, if it was easy, it wouldn't be heroic would it? Having stats that reflect one's courage or willpower, and game mechanics which allow a player to spend some resources to overcome setbacks...i.e. to work up his fortitude and courage or to see if he has Psychological traits which may hinder or help (perhaps his best friend died, and his rage at his friend's death overcomes his own fear of death...this can be reflected by Psychological Traits like, Friendship or Loyalty) is a far more interesting proposition than just declaring that you're going to charge the machine gun nest.
It's also more interesting than just figuring out that if you succeed in taking it out, that you gain X number of experience points to level up.
So stats, skills, talents, traits, and other measurements are not a bad thing. Now, what I think is interesting is not allowing the player to know the exact number of his abilities. Afterall, we don't know exactly how smart or agile or courageous we are. I've used this technique in paper and pen RPG's, and the effect is extremely interesting.
There are two basic schools of philosophy when it comes to roleplaying. You can either come from the "Roleplaying is like improv drama...the less rules that get in the way of my narration and scene description, the better!", or you can come from the school that says roleplaying games were derived from historical miniature games and therefore rolplaying is merely the the simulation of how character would be defined in a given rules-system and setting.
The people who lean towards the improv school feel that qualification doesn't come from quantification. In other words, numbers are far too concrete and don't truly represent the abstract qualities that storytelling requires. People in this school of thought tend to prefer "rules-lite" systems that encourage character or story driven settings that emphasize not so how much how the cause-effect relationship is achieved (via rules), but rather the choices that are made by the player. In other words, it focuses on the subjective human element.
In contrast, the wargame lineage crowd falls into two camps. On one side, you have the gamists who feel that the objective quantifiable rules are there solely to achieve victory conditions. These victory conditions ultimately are all that matter because winning is what playing a game is all about. While roleplaying is famous for not having "winning and losing", it shows up in RPG's as the quest for more treasure, bigger weapons, higher level skills. These are sought after as an end unto themselves, rather than as a means to another character goal.
The other camp are the simulationists. They, like the improv group are interested in the psychological human element and the story that is weaved. But they are also concerned with the contextual framework that causes things to happen. In other words, how and why things work out the way they do are important. Therefore numbers to qualify things are necessary to make sense of why things happened the way they did. Rules should be consistent, logical and realistic given the setting of the game world. This is what sets them apart from the gamists, who care about rules mainly for the conditions that will allow them to achieve victory (for these people, victory is the above mentioned leveling up, power or money). For the simulationists, balance isn't always required, as long as it accurately portrays the causal relationships of the gameworld.
Personally, I feel that simulationism is the way to go. When I've played with the improv types, I've always wondered why they even bothered with rules at all. They seem to want to act out and create stories with little heed to how plausible something might be. I've often thought they should simply do improv drama or adlibbed group stories. Afterall, what this type of player wants is really an interesting story to weave. And it is often the telling of the tale rather than the tale itself that is entertaining.
For the gamists, I see their desire to win without looking at the human element to be a harmless sort of greed. It is very one-dimensional and only promotes a sense of reflection on the real world that the only thing that matters is power, money and influence.
So that leaves the Simulationists. I think it's a good balance of wanting to understand the human condition with realizing that the rules of the system are a constraint to exploring some issues. For example, we all want to be the hero in the story right? So why not scream at the top of your lungs and charage headlong into that MG42 nest to take out the fiendish Nazi stooges that mowed down your friends? Well, if it was easy, it wouldn't be heroic would it? Having stats that reflect one's courage or willpower, and game mechanics which allow a player to spend some resources to overcome setbacks...i.e. to work up his fortitude and courage or to see if he has Psychological traits which may hinder or help (perhaps his best friend died, and his rage at his friend's death overcomes his own fear of death...this can be reflected by Psychological Traits like, Friendship or Loyalty) is a far more interesting proposition than just declaring that you're going to charge the machine gun nest.
It's also more interesting than just figuring out that if you succeed in taking it out, that you gain X number of experience points to level up.
So stats, skills, talents, traits, and other measurements are not a bad thing. Now, what I think is interesting is not allowing the player to know the exact number of his abilities. Afterall, we don't know exactly how smart or agile or courageous we are. I've used this technique in paper and pen RPG's, and the effect is extremely interesting.
Dauntless,
Great post! I liked your use of a framework (schools of thought..) Conveys your point well. Now to respond.
Personally, there are times when it's enjoyable to have the ability to do whatever, whenever, with no care for chance to fail, chance to succeed, whatever. However, if we're talking about internet RPGs, that could be very scary since a griefer or other type of non-serious role playing individual could cause major problems.
For example, if I'm role playing an old man with a cane, and super duper godly warrior smarts off to me, in about every game I couldn't walk up to him and bop him over the head and have any sort of side effect for it, other than him role playing in response (which, unfortunately, ain't too likely in a lot of game settings). However, if people were allowed to hit one another at any time and knock them down and do whatever, that could cause problems.
So of course we need rules and systems to keep order and sense in a game world (still talking about online RPGs). What I said earlier about making a game without skills/stats/etc, I was keeping in mind the idea of a "game." That didn't mean to say the things should not *exist* but maybe that they weren't present in such a typical and standard way, to cater to the familiar ideas of what RPGs have become (not what they were, or maybe what they were intended to be).
By it I meant, why are "role playing" games really just combative or conflict resolution engines with "the choice" to role play? Role playing is always optional and second to your model of "gamist" because it's the gamist who often is in the mind of developers when they make games of this nature.
In order to appeal to the most users, gamist is the safer model to base your design off of because you can always say the choice to role play is there. All I've ever wanted to see in the MMORPG genre is some push for actual role playing in a way other than "a special server," emotes, or raids on nearby enemy villages.
I guess technically it's "role playing" since you're taking control of a warrior or mage in a medieval world, but that's no more role playing than playing the Sorceress in diablo 2, or Link in the Zelda series of games.
Anyway, personally, I think I fit closely into the simulationist approach, and agree it's probably the best way to go.
Thanks,
Catch
Great post! I liked your use of a framework (schools of thought..) Conveys your point well. Now to respond.
Personally, there are times when it's enjoyable to have the ability to do whatever, whenever, with no care for chance to fail, chance to succeed, whatever. However, if we're talking about internet RPGs, that could be very scary since a griefer or other type of non-serious role playing individual could cause major problems.
For example, if I'm role playing an old man with a cane, and super duper godly warrior smarts off to me, in about every game I couldn't walk up to him and bop him over the head and have any sort of side effect for it, other than him role playing in response (which, unfortunately, ain't too likely in a lot of game settings). However, if people were allowed to hit one another at any time and knock them down and do whatever, that could cause problems.
So of course we need rules and systems to keep order and sense in a game world (still talking about online RPGs). What I said earlier about making a game without skills/stats/etc, I was keeping in mind the idea of a "game." That didn't mean to say the things should not *exist* but maybe that they weren't present in such a typical and standard way, to cater to the familiar ideas of what RPGs have become (not what they were, or maybe what they were intended to be).
By it I meant, why are "role playing" games really just combative or conflict resolution engines with "the choice" to role play? Role playing is always optional and second to your model of "gamist" because it's the gamist who often is in the mind of developers when they make games of this nature.
In order to appeal to the most users, gamist is the safer model to base your design off of because you can always say the choice to role play is there. All I've ever wanted to see in the MMORPG genre is some push for actual role playing in a way other than "a special server," emotes, or raids on nearby enemy villages.
I guess technically it's "role playing" since you're taking control of a warrior or mage in a medieval world, but that's no more role playing than playing the Sorceress in diablo 2, or Link in the Zelda series of games.
Anyway, personally, I think I fit closely into the simulationist approach, and agree it's probably the best way to go.
Thanks,
Catch
I've been berated for saying this before, but the majority of computer gamers are gamists simply because roleplaying...true roleplaying, is much more difficult than it sounds. As I mentioned about improv drama, roleplaying is in mays about acting. You have to step into the shoes of the character and imagine what it would be like to be that alter-ego.
It is the potential to explore what if situations with skills and abilities that we in the real world don't have that makes roleplaying an interesting concept. This is why I believe that the pen and paper RPG's are simply heads and shoulders above computer based RPG's for the exact reason that computer RPG's today only offer gamist type of play.
So the question is really, why do game designers only design games that cater to the gamist type of player personality? Are players gamist because they don't realize there's another option? I think the answer is a little of both. To capture the ability to explore how a character would act in a situation, and to really immerse one's self into both the character and the setting is something difficult to capture from a computer. Because of the online nature of communication, there's a lack of intimacy in socializing that is a big drawback to the roleplaying experience. As humans, we rely upon the tone of voice, body movements, facial gestures and a host of other details to both understand others and to get across our own points. And roleplaying is really about communicating and sharing an imagined situation. The computer handles the sharing the imagined situation very well...perhaps a little too well. The computer's ability to provide a vivid graphical, physics and aural simulation of what the situation presents can in some ways be detrimental.
But the computer fails horribly at the communication part, even withstanding VoIP or other relatively instantaneous voice communications technologies. Text chatting simply doesn't cut the mustard. Having done paper and pen roleplaying off and on for close to 20 years now, I can see how roleplaying is as much about being a social phenomenon as it is a game. It's about camaraderie with your friends, going out for pizza for a game break, and just shooting the bull. Being socially close allows certain barriers to be broken down which in turn allow for greater roleplaying potential. Roleplaying I believe is a skill....very akin to acting. Just as FPS like Thresh and Fata1ity practiced to hone their skills, I believe roleplaying is the same.
Game design can help mitigate some of these problems. Newer RPG's like The Riddle of Steel or Sorceror are trying to introduce the psychological aspects of the character to how the character behaves. This reduces the combat monster potential that plague many RPG's. But again, I think it boils down to the social contract (as it's referred to in roleplaying circles) between the game group as to what to expect out of roleplaying. Trying to do this with a bunch of strangers over the internet is exceedingly difficult.
I'll end this by talking about one of the most memorable roleplaying campaigns I ever did. I ran this campaign way back in the late 80's (about 1987 IIRC) using a system called Phoenix Command. Now, PC was barely a roleplaying game in the sense that there were no real skills, it was basically a small arms tactical skirmish rules system that was incredibly realistic (I tend to think that older games are more realistic than the newer ones of today). The setting was the Vietnam Conflict, since at my age at the time (about 15 or so) the Vietnam War was fascinating to me because of how horribly wrong the war was. I ran 3 campaigns actually, one from the 173rd Airborne Brigade ("The Herd") which was the only unit to make an airborne drop in Vietnam, the 3rd Battalion 3rd Div USMC (along with a Force Recon mini-campaign), and some LRRP stuff (long range reconnaissance patrols). What amazed me about these campaigns was that despite the actual game system being deprived of virtually any roleplaying rules, those campaigns were some of the most human and thought provoking campaigns I've ever played. Because I introduced many human elements and moral/ethical decisions for the players, they were forced to make decisions. One of the interesting things about Phoenix Command which was actually its main selling point, was how realistic and therefore deadly the combat was. Prior to this game, most of the players treated combat as a chance to grandstand and showoff. Not after a few game sessions of Phoenix Command. In fact, this game campaign was the only campaign I've ever run in which the players....not the characters....actually exhibited true cowardice and bravery.
So it just goes to show that the most important part to good roleplaying isn't necessarily the game design, but the social contract between the group, and the groups ability to communicate effectively, openly and honestly with each other.
It is the potential to explore what if situations with skills and abilities that we in the real world don't have that makes roleplaying an interesting concept. This is why I believe that the pen and paper RPG's are simply heads and shoulders above computer based RPG's for the exact reason that computer RPG's today only offer gamist type of play.
So the question is really, why do game designers only design games that cater to the gamist type of player personality? Are players gamist because they don't realize there's another option? I think the answer is a little of both. To capture the ability to explore how a character would act in a situation, and to really immerse one's self into both the character and the setting is something difficult to capture from a computer. Because of the online nature of communication, there's a lack of intimacy in socializing that is a big drawback to the roleplaying experience. As humans, we rely upon the tone of voice, body movements, facial gestures and a host of other details to both understand others and to get across our own points. And roleplaying is really about communicating and sharing an imagined situation. The computer handles the sharing the imagined situation very well...perhaps a little too well. The computer's ability to provide a vivid graphical, physics and aural simulation of what the situation presents can in some ways be detrimental.
But the computer fails horribly at the communication part, even withstanding VoIP or other relatively instantaneous voice communications technologies. Text chatting simply doesn't cut the mustard. Having done paper and pen roleplaying off and on for close to 20 years now, I can see how roleplaying is as much about being a social phenomenon as it is a game. It's about camaraderie with your friends, going out for pizza for a game break, and just shooting the bull. Being socially close allows certain barriers to be broken down which in turn allow for greater roleplaying potential. Roleplaying I believe is a skill....very akin to acting. Just as FPS like Thresh and Fata1ity practiced to hone their skills, I believe roleplaying is the same.
Game design can help mitigate some of these problems. Newer RPG's like The Riddle of Steel or Sorceror are trying to introduce the psychological aspects of the character to how the character behaves. This reduces the combat monster potential that plague many RPG's. But again, I think it boils down to the social contract (as it's referred to in roleplaying circles) between the game group as to what to expect out of roleplaying. Trying to do this with a bunch of strangers over the internet is exceedingly difficult.
I'll end this by talking about one of the most memorable roleplaying campaigns I ever did. I ran this campaign way back in the late 80's (about 1987 IIRC) using a system called Phoenix Command. Now, PC was barely a roleplaying game in the sense that there were no real skills, it was basically a small arms tactical skirmish rules system that was incredibly realistic (I tend to think that older games are more realistic than the newer ones of today). The setting was the Vietnam Conflict, since at my age at the time (about 15 or so) the Vietnam War was fascinating to me because of how horribly wrong the war was. I ran 3 campaigns actually, one from the 173rd Airborne Brigade ("The Herd") which was the only unit to make an airborne drop in Vietnam, the 3rd Battalion 3rd Div USMC (along with a Force Recon mini-campaign), and some LRRP stuff (long range reconnaissance patrols). What amazed me about these campaigns was that despite the actual game system being deprived of virtually any roleplaying rules, those campaigns were some of the most human and thought provoking campaigns I've ever played. Because I introduced many human elements and moral/ethical decisions for the players, they were forced to make decisions. One of the interesting things about Phoenix Command which was actually its main selling point, was how realistic and therefore deadly the combat was. Prior to this game, most of the players treated combat as a chance to grandstand and showoff. Not after a few game sessions of Phoenix Command. In fact, this game campaign was the only campaign I've ever run in which the players....not the characters....actually exhibited true cowardice and bravery.
So it just goes to show that the most important part to good roleplaying isn't necessarily the game design, but the social contract between the group, and the groups ability to communicate effectively, openly and honestly with each other.
Quote:
So it just goes to show that the most important part to good roleplaying isn't necessarily the game design, but the social contract between the group, and the groups ability to communicate effectively, openly and honestly with each other.
True, which is perhaps why the gamist is most catered to. The internet is an anonymous place, and as people have said in other threads, the anonymous aspect of the internet ultimately leads to a bunch of assholes. I guess game designers take the most easy and profitable role when it comes to dealing with this.
Of course when I attempt to deal with this variable in my own game designs, I am quite stumped. Currently, the best thing I can hope for is that any game I may eventually complete will simply attract the right crowd. I have some other ideas about how to deal with this, but I can't say anything with confidence until I can actually test it (which won't happen for a while!)
If you've played text based MUDs, Gemstone has had a good role playing backing for a long time. It isn't without flaws, but for anonymous people over the internet, it is overwhelmingly role played quite well by the masses.
The average age group, from my experience, seems to be early 30s and above. Not to say young people can't be mature and role play, my wife and I played, and both enjoy role playing environments. I'm 23, and she's 19.
Hm, young love ;)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
