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

since when?

"The human mind is limited only by the bounds which we impose upon ourselves." -iNfuSeD

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

Did Ultima Online really try to ''force role-playing'' or did they try to instill some role-play elements in a typically non-role-playing environment (hack''n''slash)?
And if one were to attempt to ''force'' someone to role-play, they better make sure that they create a role-play friendly and ready environment. Ultima Online seems to be just another run-of-the-mill MMORPG. Not a great setting for role-play to develop. Certainly not a great setting to start forcing players to role-play.

quote: Original post by chronos
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.

Forgive me, MSW, for taking up your position for a second, BUT...

I think that MSW meant that what one particular person thinks is "good roleplaying" is never a good approximation of a good game. Different people enjoy different things. There are enough people that find Diablo I / II an incredibly entertaining "role-playing game". You can argue all day long about whether Diablo is or is not a roleplaying game according to your own definition, and talk about ways to add more of your style of roleplaying to it, but you will start to lose the original fans. You wouldn''t be wrong, but neither would the people that enjoyed Diablo the first time ''round.

What I propose is the following revision of the original question:

"How can we induce and reward good acting by players of a computer game?"

I think that''s a reasonably neutral statement. It doesn''t mention any specific currently-existing genre or paradigm, yet focuses on what I think is the core issue that the original poster wants to tackle.

The topic is called Forcing roleplaying right? but that is completely absurd. You can''t force people to act in character. What would be a more realistic system is one that encourages players to role play. People that act the way a character would in that game universe are rewarded more then people who don''t act. If you could develop a community of people that would help enforce such bonuses themselves then it would make the game play much more immersive. When a player actually begins thinking the way his character would and believes that he is actually infact that character and not some jo shmo living in the 21st century, then a game becomes more enjoyable then one that a player thinks he is just controlling some graphical avatar around on his computer screen


"The human mind is limited only by the bounds which we impose upon ourselves." -iNfuSeD

MadKeithV,

The main reason why I''m arguing semantics is that Kylotan chose to focus on Teamshibi''s conception of role-playing. I wanted to show that Teamshibi''s implicit definition of role-playing is a perfectly valid one, even if it''s not the only one. Once Teamshibi''s use of the word is acknowledged it is possible to answer his question using any words you like. That way there''s no need for Teamshibi to restate the question.

I don''t think Teamshibi is saying that games like Diablo should be modified to suit his definition of roleplaying. I think what Teamshibi is saying is that the term MMORPG is misused, that it should only be used for games which feature role-playing of the acting kind, and that he''d like to hear about ways of reinforcing role-playing according to his implicit definition of the term.

quote: Original post by chronos
I think what Teamshibi is saying is that the term MMORPG is misused, that it should only be used for games which feature role-playing of the acting kind,

Yep, and that''s what is wrong, because three different people will give three different definitions of what "Roleplaying" in general will be, and it only gets worse if you get into MMORPGs. It''s not that the question is invalid, but it''s interpretation is too open.

So, I propose shifting the original question from MMORPGs (which is a loaded term because of prior art etc) to focusing on *new* games that feature "player acting" - which I believe is a more neutral term than role-playing, but still encompasses what Teamshibi meant originally in posting the thread.

quote: Original post by iNfuSeD
You can''t force people to act in character. What would be a more realistic system is one that encourages players to role play. People that act the way a character would in that game universe are rewarded more then people who don''t act.

Certainly the game should do as much as possible to encourage role-playing, but it''s not really possible to encourage everybody. If nothing is done to stop people who act out of character you''ll end up with a bunch of people who act out of character. That''s fine if OOC behavior doesn''t bother you, but there''s no denying that OOC behavior has the potential to interfere with the efforts of players who prefer to stick to the game''s imaginary setting. If you''re playing a game that''s designed for these kinds of players, OOC behavior is unacceptable.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
Yep, and that''s what is wrong, because three different people will give three different definitions of what "Roleplaying" in general will be, and it only gets worse if you get into MMORPGs. It''s not that the question is invalid, but it''s interpretation is too open.

Teamshibi''s use of the word "roleplaying" is consistent with the term''s original meaning. That a new definition emerges for a particular word does not automatically invalidate its original meaning. This is particularly true if the new definition is inconsistent with the original, as is the case for the term "role-playing".

Again, I refer to the "GNS" division system, currently used and under discussion on the D&D boards. Even the pen-and-paper people have realised that there are (at least) three very different interpretations of "role-playing" that are each as valid as the other.

So no, it''s not consistent with the original meaning, because there is no consistent original meaning beyond the very vague description "playing a role".

its a paradox

the incentive to move into a gameworld is power driven
power driven behaviour leads to social disorder

removing the basis for power driven behaviour restores order
but diminishes the value of persisting in the gameworld

only the suspension of this paradox in a closed environment (eg. sitting - SplittingTrashcan) allows for the emergence of role playing (as opposed to "real playing")