Quote:

Original post by Edtharan So, in Second Life, even though the intent of the designers was not to create a role playing game, if the players use it as such, then as far as I am concerned, they are role playing.

By that logic regardless if an M-16 is designed for combat situations, if someone chooses to use it as a sport hunting rifle, then the M-16 is a sport hunting rifle.

The intent does matter, whether or not someone chooses to use it for something else than it's intent does not matter.
How it is perceived by the market is what matters, and how it is perceived by the market is an extension of what the intent of the designer is.

Someone choosing to adopt a role to play as in a simulator does not make the simulator a game as it lacks the components that constitute a game.

I am not suggesting that people are unable to adopt vicarious roles in any thing they take part in, but the aspect that drastically makes a difference in this instance between a simulator and a game is that a game has components in place designed to be used as a game.
A simulator does not have these components and instead has components in place to simulate reality as closely as possible with respect to it's setting.

For instance:
consider the following:
Simulator -
One that simulates, especially an apparatus that generates test conditions approximating actual or operational conditions.

Game -
A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules

Virtual Reality -
A computer simulation of a real or imaginary system that enables a user to perform operations on the simulated system and shows the effects in real time.

Roleplaying -
to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of another, esp. in a make-believe situation


So, to combine the terms:

Roleplaying Game:
A competitive activity in which players assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of another to contend with each other according to a set of rules

Virtual Reality Simulator (e.g. Second Life)
A computer simulation, that generates test conditions approximating actual or operational conditions of a real or imaginary system (real life) that enables a user to perform operations on the simulated system (second life) and shows the effects in real time.

So I hold to my original statement:
Though adoption is available in both systems, they are not the same thing.

It would be as to tell me that Rummy and Tarot are the same thing since they both use cards, and if someone wanted to play Tarot with Rummy, they could so that's all that matters; and because of this they must therefore be the same thing.

Quote:

It would be as to tell me that Rummy and Tarot are the same thing since they both use cards, and if someone wanted to play Tarot with Rummy, they could so that's all that matters; and because of this they must therefore be the same thing.

Rummy is a process played with a set of components that are given an arbitrary value. Tarot is a different process implemented by a set of components that are given an arbitrary value.

Because of this, you can play rummy with any set of components that can be given the necessary set of arbitrary values. When this be card, tiles, tarot card, pieces of paper, stones or whatever else. Rummy is a process that you implement with the components. So it does not matter a bit what the components actually are so long as you can implement the rules of the game with them.

So this actually supports my position, and so is actually a bad example for your position.

Quote:

By that logic regardless if an M-16 is designed for combat situations, if someone chooses to use it as a sport hunting rifle, then the M-16 is a sport hunting rifle.

Components and processes are different things. From the above examples, I think you are confusing the two.

A set of tiles used to play rummy (there is a game called Rummycub which is rummy played with a set of tiles) are still tiles. I am in no way disagreeing with this analogy, but a set of tiles used to play rummy can also be used to play a different game (like poker). You can then describe these tiles as poker tiles (as many people will call card poker cards or rummy cards depending on the game they are ablut to play).

However, Hunting Rifle and M16 describe not the intent of the gun, but specifying the operational characteristics of it. The functionality of an M16 is quite different to that of a hunting rifle and this is what the difference in name is all about.

Cards and tiles are two things that also have different operational characteristics, but in the above examples, the operational characteristics that are relevant to the games are no different (they can be held in the hand, they can obscure one side of them, they can have a symbol identifying or conveying information on one or more sides and they can be placed so that a particular side is visible). As for the guns, they can both be used to shoot things.

So while I would never call a card a tile, I would also never call an M16 a hunting rifle for the same reason, there are specific differences between them that the naming is intended to indicate.

But you can go hunting with an M16 (although because of the differences it might not be all that effective), that does not make it a hunting rifle. You can also play rummy with tiles, but that does not make the tiles cards.

Now the really important thing is that each of these (tiles, cards and guns), are a component used in the process. Where as the computer program is the process, and how you work with that process is different.

For the analogy to be proper, you would ahve to equate cards or rifles with on screen button, or objects within the game (like weapons, crates, etc).

So you are confusing process with components, and this is why your analogies are not valid.

Quote:

The functionality of an M16 is quite different to that of a hunting rifle and this is what the difference in name is all about.

The functionality of a simulator is quite different to that of a game and this is what the difference in name is all about.

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_Kemp Quote: The functionality of an M16 is quite different to that of a hunting rifle and this is what the difference in name is all about. The functionality of a simulator is quite different to that of a game and this is what the difference in name is all about.

It would depend on the type of simulator. If it was a weather simulator, I'd agree with you, but a "simulator" like Second Life is so much like a game that many mistake it for one.

It can be debated that Second Life is not a Simulator, as it is not actually trying to simulate anything (although it succeeds in simulating an economy so well that it had been accepted as one - but it is not an economic simulator). Second Life is Entertainment Software. Games are just one type of entertainment software. Second life has some many components in common with games that, although the basic program can not be described as a game exactly, when people script in "world" objects to act like part of a game, it becomes a game.

I scripted Neverwinter Nights to act as a RTS game. So, if you are playing that lever, are you playing a role playing game or an RTS?

This is an important question. If you agree that when playing my RTS scripted elves you are playing an RTS and not an RPG, then you have to agree with me that the intent of the software designer is not the defining thing that makes a game a game or the type of game. If in Second life someone scripts it so that it is an RTS, is what way is that different from me scripting NwN into an RTS?

Entertainment Software can be made so flexible now days that the intent of the original designer can be overwritten. Neverwinter Nights and Second Life are both pieces of Entertainment Software, if the original designers gave the users the flexibility to make it what they want, why can't it be what the user wants it to be as the designer added this flexibility into the software so it can be argued that it was the intent of the designer that it be used in that way.

So we come to the fact that even if we use your definition and requirement, Second Life can still be called a game (because it was the intent of the designers that users could - in system - manipulate it that way), and if it is used as a Role Playing Game, then it can also be called a Role Playing Game when used that way.

Second Life has the functionality of "Hit Points" built into it. This is not enabled in non game sections, but it exists and it was the intent of the designers to include it (no body hacked it and it is part of the default interface that you can enable/disable it in the areas you own as you wish). Hit Points are a Game Mechanic. The designers of Second Life intended for their software to be used as a game.

I apologize, I didn't see the responding post.

I can see your point, and it becomes more difficult to determine the exact line between such systems; I concede on this.

There definitely is a difference, and I still hold to the difference being the intent.
However, I believe that I have changed my reasoning as to why it is the intent because of your solid points that force the consideration.

The designers build the systems with different passions and purposes in their minds, and as such, the systems carry with them a different characteristic than the other.

MMORPG developers definitely seem to have a consistent mindset of developers and Second Life drastically approaches it's own design with an entirely different mindset than that of the regular MMORPG fare.

I am among those that state that MMORPG's are hardly an RPG much more than than Halo Online, or Knockout Kings, but they are titled as such due to history so the imagery of what an MMORPG, as convoluted as it is, is the cause from the mindset of those that have designed them.

Perhaps one day that will change, but for now, what you get from the current history of MMORPG's regular fare is what is an MMORPG (with or without role playing) and Second Life is not part of this group because it does not follow the same structure as they do.

(personally, MMORPG's would be better named currently as MMORAG's [ Reward Attainment Games], but that's a different discussion)

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_Kemp MMORPG developers definitely seem to have a consistent mindset of developers and Second Life drastically approaches it's own design with an entirely different mindset than that of the regular MMORPG fare. I am among those that state that MMORPG's are hardly an RPG much more than than Halo Online, or Knockout Kings, but they are titled as such due to history so the imagery of what an MMORPG, as convoluted as it is, is the cause from the mindset of those that have designed them.

I agree. As an avid and regular pen and paper RPG player (I run a few games and play in others as well) I too think that the current RPG games are misnamed, and it has more to do with publicity than histroy. But even so, there has been, despite the more public "RPG", a much smaller, but present RPGs that follow a different paradigm than what most people know.

Historically the pen and paper role playing games have been vilified, so the gameplay has not been something that would have been amenable to publicity. This, I think, is why the mechanics that would allow this kind of gameplay has not been in the more public games.

In many cases these games designed for role play have either gotten through in the guise of other games (like Sword of the Samurai being called a strategy game) or as underground (and thus not usually commercial) free "Tools" or games.

I suppose, unless you have been part of this scene, you might not realise that these actually exist and so it would seem that historically, the only RPGs have been the ones that have been more publicly promoted.

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_Kemp Perhaps one day that will change, but for now, what you get from the current history of MMORPG's regular fare is what is an MMORPG (with or without role playing) and Second Life is not part of this group because it does not follow the same structure as they do.

As someone who has participated in these kinds of "underground" role playing games, Second life is really just another one of these hidden RPGs.

Hopefully, in the future as RPGs are now becoming less vilified (there are still people that think if you play RPGs you are worshipping the devil - or as a less extreme you are just completely nerdy), that people will be more accepting of the "true" RPG games. People are startign to desire more character interaction and this will eventually lead to proper role playing.

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_Kemp (personally, MMORPG's would be better named currently as MMORAG's [ Reward Attainment Games], but that's a different discussion)

I like that...

...but RAG has a bit of a negative vibe to it (as in a dish rag). OR is that what you meant? :D

This article has some interesting and related points, although it does not speak of game design. From it, I think these ideas are important:

-Without consequences, people will do whatever is best for themselves
-People will hurt others (even at their own loss) for a sense of 'fairness'
-When people are punished for their 'unfair' behavior, they often learn to cooperate