quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan
I still say Gygax has a vested interest. If his philosophy has been that P&P RPGs are a superior form of entertainment to electronic media (which to my knowledge it has been, and in many ways they are), then of course he will be reluctant to admit that MMOGs, an electronic medium, will ever be able to assume even some of the capabilities of his beloved P&P.

Gygax does not claim that MMOGs will never be able to offer a genuine roleplaying experience. Remember that Gygax is talking about CRPGs in general, a genre which includes games like Ultima and Final Fantasy. These types of games allow players to assume the role of a character, but they don't allow players to play a meaningful original role.

quote: But that doesn't mean it's impossible to offer those choices. And that doesn't mean it's impossible to exploit what choices there are. Let me put it this way: as long as I have the freedom to make my character look how I want and talk how I want, I have the opportunity to roleplay.

If you're talking about multiplayer games then it's certainly not impossible to offfer roleplaying choices. With single-player games there is currently no way to add meaningful roleplaying, because your actions have so little effect on the game's state that you might as well be talking to yourself. Finally, if you're playing an online RPGs where the players around you don't engage in roleplaying, there's little point in doing any roleplaying yourself.

quote: The only cheap way to recover the health was to sit down. While sitting, you couldn't do anything but talk. That was a remarkable stimulus for roleplaying. People would congregate in crowds of sitters, with a few rested-up people patrolling the edges to keep wandering monsters at bay, and talk while they sat. I suspect most people were RPing themselves, but who cares? I chatted with all and sundry and had a marvelous time. I roleplayed SilveRing the swordsman, who was fond of his natty fedora and loathed beetles. Had I more choices I would have exploited those too.

It's certainly possible to do some roleplaying in online RPGs. You're interacting with other players through in-character dialogue, which makes your efforts worthwhile. On the other hand, if everybody were talking about last night's Sopranos episode your character would seem out of place.

quote: I think your simple solution forgets what the first M in MMOG stands for. That would be Massively. As in Massively Multiplayer. As in there are a LOT of people playing.

I did not forget. There's no reason why you can't pick from a pool of talented players to act as volunteer GMs. MUDs did this with Wizards, and you can do the same in MMORPGs.

quote: But who defines "not roleplaying"? Could you please define "not roleplaying" for me? I'm having a hard time imagining a way to "not roleplay".

If you're not making an effort to present a well developed character to other players, you're not roleplaying. If you're acting in ways which are not consistent with the game's fictional reality, you're either not roleplaying (talking about last night's Sopranos episode) or you're roleplaying badly (playing a modern character in a medieval online RPG).

quote: If you don't interact at all, that's roleplaying the strong silent type.

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with playing the "strong silent type" if it makes sense within the game, but a player who never makes any effort to interact with others while others are around is simply not roleplaying. What would RPGs be like if everybody played the spaced-out catatonic type?

quote: If you bring up out of game knowledge or break the fourth wall, all it takes is a userbase who will either ignore you or say something like "I know not of these Bears of Chi-Ca-Go. Are they wild and hairy?" Or give you a warning, either just verbal or an in-game flag which marks you as a BAD RPer.

That might work when out of character behavior is rare, but when people do that a lot it becomes a real problem. Players could notify GMs about problem players to be dealt with in whatever way is appropriate.

quote: Of course, this means that combat must no longer be the primary way you interact with your environment, as it is in most modern MMORPGs.

I agree, but combat could still be an essential part of the game. Combat would exist within a greater roleplaying context. For instance, you could try to kill the king and claim his throne, but the characters who are loyal to the king would do their best to stop and punish you.

[edited by - chronos on October 15, 2002 7:07:43 PM]

This is so, SO, SO pointless ...




Why must every post about RPGs degrade to such silly 'arguments' over "My definitaion is correct", "No mine is", yadda, yadda, yadda...it's pointless, because no one is going to change thier minds...no matter how well you argue the 'facts' of your 'interpretation'...it's obviously pointless to carry on such discussions if everyone only walls themselves up into thier little boxes...and defineing in absolute terms just what 'roleplaying' exclusively meens...only limits the potential roles people can play...which in turn limits the potential of games involveing roleplaying to a exclusive set of design rules...and once you get RPGs defined as such, there is no point in makeing anymore RPGs, as thier would be no room for innovation or creativity.

besides...

Roleplaying has been around for CENTURIES. Gygax didn't invent it, nor did he perfect it...Purhapse some design solutions could be found outside the realm of P&P RPGs...kids often play "Cowboys and Indians"/"Cops and Robbers" without needing a GM/DM...People often have sex while roleplaying (the 'Batman' urban legend for example)...Psychologist use roleplaying to help patients understand their relationships with others...

Blah!...This is pointless...just make the game you want to play, if others don't like it (or think that it's NOT a RPG) then screw them...it's thier loss...you can't please everyone...



[edited by - MSW on October 16, 2002 11:23:55 AM]

[edit: You know MSW, it's also not very good forum to add content to a message two days later, but at least now you've made a valid point ]

[edited by - MadKeithV on October 17, 2002 3:36:40 AM]

The most annoying thing, and propably the reason why MANY people don''t roleplay at all in MMORPGs, is that you get rewarded for power-gaming. As long as it is more rewarding to go hunt monsters endlessly as really playing out a role, that''s what people will do...

One way to make people power-game less is using a zero-sum skill system. Btw, I''m very much looking forward to Star Wars Galaxies... Such a skill system allows for character development, refinement, specialization... but doesn''t encourage pointless (from a character''s point of view) monster hunting.

The one thing game developers have to do, is making power-gaming not important and improving the appeal of other aspects of the game...

What a game developer cannot force a player to do is play a character other than himself. If players want to play themselves - I have no problem with it. There are so many different kinds of people out there, that the game-world will never become boring... I enjoy playing other character-types - if others do not, it''s ok with me, as long as it doesn''t diminish my game experience...

quote: The most annoying thing, and propably the reason why MANY people don''t roleplay at all in MMORPGs, is that you get rewarded for power-gaming. As long as it is more rewarding to go hunt monsters endlessly as really playing out a role, that''s what people will do...

''More rewarding'' is in the eye of the beholder. I do agree though, the ''roleplay'' aspect of current MMORPGs is very limited. I think that''s mainly because we just don''t have the technology yet to replace a human DM with 0''s and 1''s.

quote: One way to make people power-game less is using a zero-sum skill system. Btw, I''m very much looking forward to Star Wars Galaxies... Such a skill system allows for character development, refinement, specialization... but doesn''t encourage pointless (from a character''s point of view) monster hunting.

Now you''ve gotten me interested in Star Wars Galaxies'' skill system. Any more details?

quote: The one thing game developers have to do, is making power-gaming not important and improving the appeal of other aspects of the game...

In other words, make the roleplay element of the game as big a part (if not bigger) of the design as the power-gaming element. I agree.

quote: What a game developer cannot force a player to do is play a character other than himself.

I disagree with this somewhat. If you as the player just play yourself, you will only get one experience from playing the game, only as one type of character. I think I''m more in favor of the game forcing the player to somewhat fit into a certain role. Sure, give the player some input too, let him make some choices, but the aim should be for the player to play the role that has been assigned/created. NOT let the role be played by the player''s personality (=play yourself).

In a black and white situation, I would prefer the design to force me into a role, instead of me forcing myself onto the role.

Roleplaying could be renamed into ''role-accepting''.

IMHO it's not about what motivates the person to play, but how that affects the interaction among others. Taking Ultima Online for example. It's very common to see people saying: "1000 more logs for Grand Masters!", while you don't see in real life people screaming "20 more programs to leet mastering!". If an player is motivated by getting stronger, and such, he can sit there in the rocks and keep mining for all his gameplay time. Steve Vai used to play 12 hours of guitar by day. But he can't look at his "person sheet" and say how many strokes to get master skills in guitar.
So, i rather think the problem is forcing player to interact correct no matter what is his motivations. OK, skills and stats are cool, all the math around it, but it should be keep off the game world. I tought the idea of MMORPG was that you were actually an person inside the created world, not a string puller.
But again, thats just an opinion. (wich leads to an phylosofical discution about the inherit of subjective/objective conclusion... very very out of the scope here. :D )

if (ansi c++ && windows.h)
whooraay!!
else
ok, lets do those cheats.

[edited by - guitarplayer on October 16, 2002 12:03:46 PM]

quote: If you as the player just play yourself, you will only get one experience from playing the game, only as one type of character. I think I''m more in favor of the game forcing the player to somewhat fit into a certain role. Sure, give the player some input too, let him make some choices, but the aim should be for the player to play the role that has been assigned/created. NOT let the role be played by the player''s personality (=play yourself).

In a black and white situation, I would prefer the design to force me into a role, instead of me forcing myself onto the role.

Roleplaying could be renamed into ''role-accepting''.

Well, then we have an obvious disagreement here. In my opinion, if you have to play a given role, you should try acting... That''s what actors do all day and what they are good at. But a computer game (even more so a MMO) should let the player choose how he wants to play the game.

Imagine one player enjoying a stupid, goofy kind of character. On the other side there will be many players who would not enjoy such a character! Actors can choose their roles, players cannot if you set a given character for them...

Star Wars Galaxies uses a skill-tree system, where you have to earn skill advancement by XP points. The interesting part from the concept is that characters can only have a certain number of skills - after that level is reached the character will not progress any more. It is however possible to drop skills and train in a different area... If it doesn''t take too long to reach the skill limit (so that only hardcore gamers reach it) this could encourage roleplaying, exploring and all the other things that could make MMORPGs fun.

------------------------------
"Reality is nothing, perception is everything!" - First Wizard Zeddicus Zu''l Zorander

quote: Actors can choose their roles, players cannot if you set a given character for them...

So, all you have to do is create enough roles for the player to choose from. Currently, in MMORPGs this is done by allowing players to choose from many different classes and races. But then, nothing is really done with that. Sure, a mage class can cast spells and a fighter class can wield weapons, certain classes are good at certain tasks, certain races excel in certain things, but there aren''t really any roles to be played. All classes, all races, all choices eventually serve but one purpose: kill monsters. The only role available to the player is that of monster-bashing hero.

quote: Star Wars Galaxies uses a skill-tree system, where you have to earn skill advancement by XP points. The interesting part from the concept is that characters can only have a certain number of skills - after that level is reached the character will not progress any more. It is however possible to drop skills and train in a different area...

Hmm, I''m suddenly less thrilled to see this system. A limit to the skills I can have, but I can delete a skill in order to research a new one. And I see experience points are still being used. Sounds like a mixture of current systems, but am not sure if it''ll work. I''m pretty sure it will not work for me

quote: Original post by MSW
Why must every post about RPGs degrade to such silly ''arguments'' over "My definitaion is correct", "No mine is", yadda, yadda, yadda...it''s pointless, because no one is going to change thier minds...

How can people communicate if they don''t at least understand what the other person has in mind? Defining the terms we use allows others to put our words in context. We might not agree, but at least we''ll be better able to understand why we disagree.

quote: kids often play "Cowboys and Indians"/"Cops and Robbers" without needing a GM/DM...

You don''t have a GM but you do have two humans who are roleplaying to each other. Each person must be willing to assume a role that is compatible with the concept of the game. If one kid is acting like a robber and the other is saying "this is boring, let''s go watch TV", the first kid''s effort is wasted.

You can''t force role-playing. Ultima Online tried and look what happened, the company went out of business and they fired Lord British.