quote: Original post by deClavier
The incentive to move into a gameworld is power driven
power driven behaviour leads to social disorder

The paradox can be lessened by redesigning the game so that being social, or rather acting well, increases the power of your character.

One ''little thing'' that actually contributes to the OOC behavior is that new character, in general, have nothing to work with for an story and ''development of in-game personality'', isn''t encouraged to interact with the history or with other players. Thousands of quests and they are too weak to get into them. It gets more clear when you see thousands of games with the "Newbie Area/Cave/Graveyard" designed for boring-safe click''n''wait.

quote: Original post by chronos
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".

This is just not true. If 100,000 people consider goblin slaying without narrative to be "role-playing", then it is. Argue about it all you like, but a new label means nothing unless people adopt it, which they won''t. So there is no point arguing about the "true" meaning, as you will change absolutely nothing. Better to use a new term that is less ambiguous, such as "narrative roleplaying" or "role-acting" or whatever.

I agree with the sentiment that games could be created to accommodate such players, and in discussing how to help achieve this. But I don''t agree that existing games are somehow ''wrong'' simply for not meeting a few people''s understanding of a term.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

Well, apparently OT from what the thread has become, but on-topic
to the subject...

Why not actually make players do something?
Instead of clicking on the blacksmith hut and picking a desired
object to have your character automatically create a new weapon,
why not use have the player actually fill the mold and temper
the steel, etc...

Players should have to work to roleplay successfully. Maybe
they could actually LEARN something as well. It''d be interesting
to have different crafted swords and such in the game.

You could combine actual creation with stats as well. That way
a new character can''t push out the level 80 Sword-of-asshanding
until they make a few of their own. Say, making the player have
to back off a little bit when they get to close to the fire or
fudging up a little when the sparks hit the player''s arms. After
the 10th or 11th sword the character can auto-make them at a
high-average(their average) quality or do it themselves to
brush the stat up a bit.

This could also be a great reason for guilding or selling one''s
magic-using skills to create new magic weapons of super-
smashing.

Just remember, you have to give players reasons for roleplaying
and set the atmosphere accordingly. History helps as well.
And, I don''t know about you guys, but it''s kind of a turn-off to
head into the "uber-secret" dungeon when it''s occupied by
hundreds of players.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

MADKEITHV wrote:

quote: The paradox can be lessened by redesigning the game so that being social, or rather acting well, increases the power of your character.

I think SpittingTrashcan''s karma idea might do just that. If I have a chance to be rewarded by ANY PC, I might just start doing all sorts of beneficial things for even complete strangers. If role-acting is one of the things that can be rewarded, that''ll be one of the things players will do.

quote: Original post by Kylotan
This is just not true. If 100,000 people consider goblin slaying without narrative to be "role-playing", then it is.

The etymological fallacy does not apply because the meaning of role-playing as acting is still valid. Since the original meaning is still valid, using the same descriptive term in a new context (MMORPG) does not suddenly become correct simply because a lot of people use it. The argument is not that games like Ultima Online aren't called RPGs, which they are, but that the use of "role-playing" in this new context is inconsistent with its original, still valid meaning.

quote: Argue about it all you like, but a new label means nothing unless people adopt it, which they won't. So there is no point arguing about the "true" meaning, as you will change absolutely nothing.

The reason for arguing the meaning of role-playing in this thread is to show that Teamshibi's use is valid. Others may define the term differently, but that does not invalidate the original meaning.

quote: Better to use a new term that is less ambiguous, such as "narrative roleplaying" or "role-acting" or whatever.

No, because term role-playing is still valid, so there is no contradiction in saying that current MMORPGs don't usually have any role-playing. Why use a nonstandard term like "role-acting" when the word role-playing already carries the desired meaning? For the comfort of those who use the term differently?

quote: But I don't agree that existing games are somehow 'wrong' simply for not meeting a few people's understanding of a term.

I don't believe that the games themselves are wrong. What the game is called does not change its nature, but that doesn't mean the name is appropriate.

[edited by - chronos on October 17, 2002 5:20:52 PM]

To give players incentive to roleplay, it''s important to give them the means to roleplay right off the bat. That means that characters at "low level" should not be forced to be similar by a system that rewards gameplay (read: mass murder) with the ability to develop. Certainly characters should be able to learn and change and grow more different. But they should also be able to get in on all the action right away, and make important choices early on. Just say no to ten wimps with knives crouching next to a rat hole.

A good P&P system which demonstrates this kind of idea is GURPS, the Generic Universal Roleplaying System. An average character starts with 100 XP to distribute among his stats and skills. From then on, he gets 1 to 2 XP per adventure. That''s enough to refine skills or buy new maneuvers, but not nearly enough to increase basic statistics. GURPS encouraged players to create interesting characters right from the start, to think carefully about how their points were being allocated, and to come up with clever solutions to tough problems (because "just leveling up until we''re tough enough" was simply not an option).

I don''t know of any MMORPG which does anything even remotely like this. Maybe it would help.

I did not read this whole thing, but my mmorpg will have roleplaying enforced to the point of RP only, for a trial 2month peroid only 3warnings to each player, and then if one is caught OOC his profile is "killed in action" and the character is deleted. The idea of roleplaying IS TO PLAY A ROLE, but the video game industry ruined it when the put rpgs on the market directed to children and such that ruined the whole idea of the genre, action adventure role playing games arent dead, just belo wmounds of useles skiddie games that people wanted to make a cheap buck off of.

if role-playing is equivalent with "a role to play"
does that imply a function that is consistent with some social system?

quote: Original post by chronos
The etymological fallacy does not apply because the meaning of role-playing as acting is still valid. Since the original meaning is still valid, using the same descriptive term in a new context (MMORPG) does not suddenly become correct simply because a lot of people use it.

Yes it does. A word is a label, and there is no ''right'' meaning, whether it''s the original meaning or not. It''s like going around trying to claim that "gay doesn''t mean homosexual, it means happy, that''s what it always used to mean and that''s how some people use it still". Language evolves and you can''t argue with consensus.

quote: The reason for arguing the meaning of role-playing in this thread is to show that Teamshibi''s use is valid. Others may define the term differently, but that does not invalidate the original meaning.

Teamshibi''s use would have been valid had it not tried to invalidate the other meanings by claiming that there was no RP in MMORPGs. There is RP - just not the particular variety he is in favour of.

quote: Why use a nonstandard term like "role-acting" when the word role-playing already carries the desired meaning? For the comfort of those who use the term differently?

Because ''role-playing'' doesn''t carry the desired meaning for most people. It doesn''t even carry any kind of consensus on its meaning. So you''re just beating your head against a wall for the sake of being stubborn. The term is too ambiguous, so why not use a new one that is less so? All terms are non-standard to begin with, but to reduce ambiguity and improve critical debate is as good a reason as any to introduce new jargon. It certainly beats arguing about the old term.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]