Computer RPG's and the difference perceived

[Callan S.]

I was looking at a thread from a few months ago 'Computer RP software' http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8117

I just wanted to raise a few questions to this quote by an unknown mouse. It's not specifically aimed at him/her, its more ideas that are fairly common though.

I'm going to question this. Your ground is very, very shaky.

There are no games that allow you to "be pretty much what you want to be." Tabletop roleplaying has this possibility, and no other games. I play and have played an excessive number of console and PC games over the years, and can think of nothing that fits that utopian ideal.

Certainly not Morrowind; or the other too-often-cited example of the Fallout games.

For the uninitiated, these are commonly billed as "non-linear roleplaying games." What this basically amounts to is a near-nonexistant plotline, with an abundance of "side quests"; that is, slayings, Fed-Ex errands, and the occasional bit of puzzle that have nothing to do with aforementioned plot. They exist to give your character experience/skills/levels/whatever, and somehow increase in power or ability. Many of these might rely on some of the more random skills you have (a Basket Weaving quest if you took points in Underwater Basket Weaving). Mostly, however, it's just killing things.

The trick is that the big boss at the end of the game must be defeated by combat. Always. Always always always. The one exception I can pull out of the air right now is Arcanum, which I know only by hearsay. Supposedly you can Diplomacy your way past him, but playing through the rest of the game as a pure talky-charismatic guy is difficult to the point of frustration.

Okay, here. Now, is it a commonly held property in RPG's that, if you have a lot of skill in a particular area, you can use that to navigate nearly all challenges that meet you?

Is it about exploring a world which is actually defined by your skills/choices. Ie, increase your diplomacy skill and the world actually changes so that now diplomacy will get you through challenges more than it would have before. Where there wasn't an option to diplomatically get through before, one now exists because your PC has high diplomacy.

Likewise, if you have high basket weaving, you may be able to basket weave your way through most challenges.

Well, no. But we like to say 'Well, it should be about the GM spotting what the characters good at and giving them the opportunity to shine'. But I think the basket weaving example shows the similarity between CRPG and RPG. Most GM's aren't going to work basket weaving into the solution to challenges. Their world is going to have a central focus on challenge resolution, combat for example, and the further away you are from that skill wise, the less you'll shine.

Apart from the GM smithing encounters to match up a bit more with player skills, so the orcs will at least think about talking, for example, is there much difference? Unless you are playing a game where the GM will arrange for you to basket weave your way through hell, that is pretty different.

If what you want is a combat game, excellent: these types of games have that. They usually have a few different kinds of combat, (melee, ranged, sword or polearm, magic, so on), in fact, so you can feel like your character is progressing down a unique path. It's total illusion.

Because if the programmers didn't code it in, you can't do it; and none of them have ever managed to simulate all of reality.

Here. I can't see how:
GM - 'You can't do it'
Player - 'Well, most cliffs are pretty craggy, so I should be able to climb down it'
GM - 'Well, its really dangerous, the face would be breaking away most of the time. Okay, you can do it, with a big penalty.'
Is simulating reality.

GM's don't simulate reality either. They negotiate, they broker a deal on what happens. They take a guess, and if they're too far off the player may leave the game. That's not simulation of reality, that's making a deal. Well, that is my assertion.

This is not to say that your core idea may or may not be the next great thing. I'm rather concerned about the viability, however, if something like Morrowind is your baseline for possibility.
*snip*

So, some questions about commonly held feelings on CRPG's. Because they might deserve questioning. :)

[Calithena]

Noon, I'm sure this isn't what you had in mind, but the association of deal-brokering and CRPGs led me to imagine computer RPGs programmed with a separate 'rules lawyer' mode where you could try to wheedle benefits out of the computer. Certain argumentative flaws would be programmed in, and smart players could gain benefits by figuring them out and exploiting them.

The humor of this image maybe suggests that the negotiation aspect of TTRPGs isn't well-handled by computers at all, though, and that the absence of give-and-take is part of the difference. Is that something you meant to say, or no?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Okay, here. Now, is it a commonly held property in RPG's that, if you have a lot of skill in a particular area, you can use that to navigate nearly all challenges that meet you?

Yeah, it's quite common, apparently more common than you think. Any other kind of play is deeply dysfunctional, most of the time. Usually the social structure goes with either a predefined world or GM deciding the challenges. In both cases players have agreed to it. In some games the process indeed goes backwards, with the players signaling with skill choise or out-and-out talking what kind of adventure they want.

If this isn't happening, you get play where the content doesn't interest the players. Dysfunctional. Only if you first negotiate a certain kind of game and then later someone takes the skill of legendary basket weaving you get the situation where basket weaving is inappropriate. But that's a bug in the player, isn't it, if he first agrees to a certain kind of game and then starts playing against it?

Well, no. But we like to say 'Well, it should be about the GM spotting what the characters good at and giving them the opportunity to shine'. But I think the basket weaving example shows the similarity between CRPG and RPG. Most GM's aren't going to work basket weaving into the solution to challenges. Their world is going to have a central focus on challenge resolution, combat for example, and the further away you are from that skill wise, the less you'll shine.

This isn't the situation in a computer game, as those mostly don't allow basket weaving nowadays (sensible, as otherwise a player could crash his own game with clearly suboptimal play). It isn't the situation in a roleplaying game either, as the game will either end with nonsatisfied players or move to the basket weaving.

As an aside, I see no problem with basket weaving as an arena of conflict. I see easily, instantly two games: one a post-tolkienist fantasy world of handywork mages, second a game of bourgeoisie home wives and their latest folly.

So, some questions about commonly held feelings on CRPG's. Because they might deserve questioning. :)

The question was left a little unclear, at least to me. Anonymouse focused on the limits of computer games. Quite clearly they are limited, that's basic system theory. You posit that roleplaying games are similarly limited, when it's equally clear that roleplaying games are real-time social constructs. They include what the players want them to, the only limits being the wishes of the players, their communication and the mechanics they need to use for non-biased generation. Roleplaying games even have the most efficient heuristics available in the form of the human brain, so it's not like a preprogrammed piece could come even near in limitlessness on any significant arena.

If your point is the detail A. chose, it's not like there isn't sufficiently many of those. His point was that computer games are limited, whether the conflict resolution is multilateral or not. It's all illusionary.

Could you state your idea in a different form? The thrust was left somewhat hidden here.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Way I see it, the difference between RPGs and CRPGs is the computer. The computer is a powerful tool that makes some easier and other things more difficult. This is such a profound change it effectively makes it another medium, one that requires different skills from the makers and differnet expectations from the audience.

By way of example, not analogy, I remember being told about a Simpsons spin of idea the creator Matt Greoning pitched once to Fox. It was a Krusty the Clown live action show. The plot is Krusty moves out to California to try to succeed in Hollywood. They had an idea for a running gag at the begining of the show where Krusty lives in one of those houses on stilts and at the begining of every show, a beaver would try to eat his house and he'd try to thwart the beaver.

Matt says that and the Fox execs exclaim "Do you know how much a beaver COSTS??" He said how about a trained beaver, they said no. How about a stuffed beaver, they said no. How about an animatronic beaver and they rolled their eyes at him.

The lesson learned here is how spoiled Matt Greoning has gotten doing an animated show for years. In an animated show you can have hundreds of sets from all over in a single episode. In a live action sitcom you have two sets: the house and not the house. Look at your favorite sitcom. Happy Days was mostly confined to the house and Arnold's (with occasional stops at Fonzie's apartment and the occasional anywhere set) So there's a profound difference between animation and live action.

Big duh, I know.

Likewise there's a difference between a CRPGs and a RPGs. The exact nature of the difference is beyond my scope, but I can try a little bit.

I had been playing the demo for Freedom Force a bit. The opening scene has a nice cityscape and it has a similar problem I have seen in countless computer games, there is a border to the map. Beyond this, nothing exists. Often this complaint is met with all you have to do is code more map. That's fine, but if it's never coded, it doesn't happen. Ever. And coding a computer game environment is not the same as expanding a RPG. They require different skill sets, arguably computer coding requires more specialized skills and if it's not right, it's glaringly obvious.

Consider, take your favorite CRPG, any CRPG and convert it to another genre, western romance, whatever. Now do the same with an RPG. Both require a bit of work, but one is easier for a larger number of people to attempt than the other.

[Callan S.]

Okay, here. Now, is it a commonly held property in RPG's that, if you have a lot of skill in a particular area, you can use that to navigate nearly all challenges that meet you?

Yeah, it's quite common, apparently more common than you think. Any other kind of play is deeply dysfunctional, most of the time. Usually the social structure goes with either a predefined world or GM deciding the challenges. In both cases players have agreed to it. In some games the process indeed goes backwards, with the players signaling with skill choise or out-and-out talking what kind of adventure they want.

Isn't choosing the computer game the same as agreeing. So someone who complained about not being able to get through on diplomacy is ignoring what they agreed to? Is that the games fault? Of course, if the advertising on the box said you could do it that way, then it's not the players fault...or the games fault. The advertising somthing seperate and is wrong.

As for signaling with skill choice what you want, I think that's dysfunctional. It's just a way of avoiding an out and out talk with the GM (which I think is good), or just agreeing to a world (which I think is second best after an out and out talk). So, if signaling is out, and it is IMO, and agreeing is okay, then were fine. You buy the game, you agree to its premises (Although you can argue about its advertising being wrong).

Actually, I'll hold back on skill choice always being a disfunctional signal. Doing it a little bit is okay, but for the purposes of this conversation I'll just stick with a flat out dysfunctional rating for it.

If this isn't happening, you get play where the content doesn't interest the players. Dysfunctional. Only if you first negotiate a certain kind of game and then later someone takes the skill of legendary basket weaving you get the situation where basket weaving is inappropriate. But that's a bug in the player, isn't it, if he first agrees to a certain kind of game and then starts playing against it?

Or if he first buys/agrees to a computer game and then expects somthing else, that's his problem. But it'll be the advertising that he agree's to really, which isn't really a quality of computer RPG's.

Well, no. But we like to say 'Well, it should be about the GM spotting what the characters good at and giving them the opportunity to shine'. But I think the basket weaving example shows the similarity between CRPG and RPG. Most GM's aren't going to work basket weaving into the solution to challenges. Their world is going to have a central focus on challenge resolution, combat for example, and the further away you are from that skill wise, the less you'll shine.

This isn't the situation in a computer game, as those mostly don't allow basket weaving nowadays (sensible, as otherwise a player could crash his own game with clearly suboptimal play). It isn't the situation in a roleplaying game either, as the game will either end with nonsatisfied players or move to the basket weaving.

As an aside, I see no problem with basket weaving as an arena of conflict. I see easily, instantly two games: one a post-tolkienist fantasy world of handywork mages, second a game of bourgeoisie home wives and their latest folly.

Harvest moon, anyone?

The question was left a little unclear, at least to me. Anonymouse focused on the limits of computer games. Quite clearly they are limited, that's basic system theory. You posit that roleplaying games are similarly limited, when it's equally clear that roleplaying games are real-time social constructs.

Actually he said they don't simulate reality. I said neither do traditional RPG's. They don't. The human brain doesn't do that either.

They include what the players want them to, the only limits being the wishes of the players, their communication and the mechanics they need to use for non-biased generation. Roleplaying games even have the most efficient heuristics available in the form of the human brain, so it's not like a preprogrammed piece could come even near in limitlessness on any significant arena.

And the heurisitic mind of any human is such that everyone, for example, can produce gallery quality artwork. Or they can't and there are limitations. In fact as GM's I bet there are quite a few games in all our historys that, with the benefit of hindsight, if we were to go back in time we could have run even better. That proves limmitation too.

Besides, the beef given was that, since CRPG's don't simulate reality, you can't do everything you want. My counter point is that in TRPG's, we don't simulate reality either. We make a deal. Although CRPG's could be seen as like a GM who is all take and no give in the deal, it's still essentially the same deal.

If your point is the detail A. chose, it's not like there isn't sufficiently many of those. His point was that computer games are limited, whether the conflict resolution is multilateral or not. It's all illusionary.

Could you state your idea in a different form? The thrust was left somewhat hidden here.

The latter halfs point was: Computers might not simulate reality, but neither do people in TRPG's.

I wonder what the threshold level is, so as to say one thing is totally illusionary and the other is the real deal. Sounds more like they're both totally illusiory and its a matter of personal taste on where that threshold lies. Which makes it less about the medium (CRPG/TRPG) and more about the man.

[Callan S.]

Jack Spencer Jr

Player 'So we leave the mission area, what do we see'
GM, after looking at his own map, which ends here 'Uh, buildings'
The GM looks carefully. No one screams or plucks out their eyes.

Probably because 'Uh, buildings' means they all have generated their own fuzzy idea of what's around. Some might think that buildings contain stuff, so they'll ask about one's contents.

GM's tend to build things as their players ask. This is because we all agree there doesn't always have to be a nicely layed out positioning in front of us on the table, in traditional RPG's. In CRPG's it's assumed we as purchasers, wont agree to that. It's assumed we agree to see everything in fair resolution, or not at all (if you show half designed environments, it breaks the 'fair resolution' agreement were supposed to want to make). And when we buy products, we certainly are agreeing to that.

So this CRPG limmitation is more about what it is assumed people will agree to buy. An 'Ask and we'll make it up as we go' system hasn't really been tried in computers probably for two reasons A: it isn't as pretty and B: It's not impossible but it is harder to code.

So is it about what CRPG's aren't? Or is it about what people aren't agreeing to?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Somehow I don't think you quite grasped my point.

....  In CRPG's .... It's assumed we agree to see everything in fair resolution, or not at all.

I am stumbling over the phrasing "we agree" in your response. We do not agree to see thing in fair resolution in a CRPG, "fair" being a slippery term here, anymore than we agree to listen to a music cd. It's part of the medium.

My point is that CRPGs are different because of the involvement of the computer. I could say things like a CRPG has the shared imagined space on the screen while a RPG has this space in the players heads.

What about in the future when we'll be able to "jack in" to the computer and, thus the space will be inside the heads. Will CRPGs be the same as RPGs? Heck no, because by jacking into the computer, it is putting the image and sensations of the shared space directly into the player's brains. Thus, it is not the same because of the involvement of the computer.

It is not about the strengths or limitations of CRPGs or RPGs in comparason to one another. It the involvement of the machine, and what it can do, that makes it a whole different ball game.

Using the futuristic computer above, it may be possible to make a CRPG that would give the exact same experience as a RPG...just to prove me wrong. But it doesn't prove me wrong any more than an avante-garde musician releasing an album of 120 minutes of complete silence prove that music is not always heard with the ears.

The computer is a pandora's box that changes the possibilities, and the actualities of play so much I consider it a separate animal.

[anonymouse]

Because if the programmers didn't code it in, you can't do it; and none of them have ever managed to simulate all of reality.

Here. I can't see how:
GM - 'You can't do it'
Player - 'Well, most cliffs are pretty craggy, so I should be able to climb down it'
GM - 'Well, its really dangerous, the face would be breaking away most of the time. Okay, you can do it, with a big penalty.'
Is simulating reality.

GM's don't simulate reality either. They negotiate, they broker a deal on what happens.<snip>

Sure, I can dig that. Except.. what does it have to do with my point? The post I was responding to was asserting that a game like Morrowind somehow allowed you to do whatever you wanted in that setting; this is patently false. You can only do what's been programmed in. Nor was I ever offering any comparisons between GMs and game developers or programmers (pretty sure, anyway..). So.. wha?

So, some questions about commonly held feelings on CRPG's. Because they might deserve questioning. :)

Er? Which questions? Gimmie some bulletpoints and I'd be happy to discuss this further.

[Andrew Norris]

A few of us had talked about this a little several months back, in a brief discussion of Neverwinter Nights. NWN allows people to host games online and for some portion of the playing group to log in as a GM, essentially with 'superuser' status. It seems germane here because while in some ways it's more like IRC play than it is single player CRPG play, it does run into 'the map ends here' syndrome. Possibly for that reason, there's a strong tendency to Simulationism among GMs of the game (so much that most build their own scenarios using a CAD-type toolset.)

There are options to avoid this; for instance, a combination of third-party addons and scripts allow for 'soundstage' areas that can be modified on the fly to look like any number of settings. You still get the sense here of "uh... buildings" (a blank area populated on the fly isn't ugly, but it's much sparser than a prebuilt dedicated area), and yet most players don't have a strong disconnect when moving to this type of locale.

[Eero Tuovinen]

The latter halfs point was: Computers might not simulate reality, but neither do people in TRPG's.

I wonder what the threshold level is, so as to say one thing is totally illusionary and the other is the real deal. Sounds more like they're both totally illusiory and its a matter of personal taste on where that threshold lies. Which makes it less about the medium (CRPG/TRPG) and more about the man.

Ah, I get it. But it's still a little unclear why you deem realism such a central issue. Has somebody lately argued that's what makes tabletop games better?

Anyway, I agree in that you can indeed see a computer program as a sort of a crippled GM. As I understand it, many people do play D&D in the States in a way more akin to a board- or computer game. Remove all initiative and you effectively get a bad computer game (bad because of handling time issues and such; a computer does those things much better).

Both computer and tabletop games indeed build imaginary constructs in the mind of the player. That's a given, at least in my analysis. There is no more real or less real, there's just more suitable and less suitable. For purposes of immersionism, for example, tabletop is better. Freedom to negotiate your vision of the gameworld wins easily over the graphical edge computer game has. Also the things I'm most interested in, like narrativistic dialogue with other people of my caliber are better dealt with with a tabletop game than any computer program.

[Callan S.]

Somehow I don't think you quite grasped my point.

....  In CRPG's .... It's assumed we agree to see everything in fair resolution, or not at all.

I am stumbling over the phrasing "we agree" in your response. We do not agree to see thing in fair resolution in a CRPG, "fair" being a slippery term here, anymore than we agree to listen to a music cd. It's part of the medium.

The medium is hardly that rigid. And even if it was, when you buy it, you agree to certain principles in it. Because you didn't have to buy it, just like you don't have to play in and thus accept every campaign idea pitched at you. EDIT: Eg, if someone pitches a gritty campaign to you, you can't complain latter that it is gritty after you accept it. You had agreed to that quality being there (though you can complain that the portrayal didn't match what the GM said he'd give). Similarly, if 'end of map' syndrom is in a product for example, and you buy it in full knowledge, what is the problem? 'End of map' or 'Gritty' are two things you agreed to. Not to mention, developers tend to develop games that have 'end of map' because alot of people accept it and buy it. Not because there aren't alternatives.

People are making their purchases and thus agreeing to what the developers are presenting. What the medium delivers is largely about what people are agreeing to/paying for, not about the mediums actual qualities.

My point is that CRPGs are different because of the involvement of the computer. I could say things like a CRPG has the shared imagined space on the screen while a RPG has this space in the players heads.

What about in the future when we'll be able to "jack in" to the computer and, thus the space will be inside the heads. Will CRPGs be the same as RPGs? Heck no, because by jacking into the computer, it is putting the image and sensations of the shared space directly into the player's brains. Thus, it is not the same because of the involvement of the computer.

Or the computer is just another tool on the table. Like the dice or a battlemat, both of which have their limmitations which they place on the game.
Unless one just can't abide the computer, then it really is a change, mostly because one just can't agree to it.

It is not about the strengths or limitations of CRPGs or RPGs in comparason to one another. It the involvement of the machine, and what it can do, that makes it a whole different ball game.

Using the futuristic computer above, it may be possible to make a CRPG that would give the exact same experience as a RPG...just to prove me wrong. But it doesn't prove me wrong any more than an avante-garde musician releasing an album of 120 minutes of complete silence prove that music is not always heard with the ears.

The computer is a pandora's box that changes the possibilities, and the actualities of play so much I consider it a separate animal.

Personally I think every time I get a new player that I don't know at all at the table, it can do far more to change possibilities and actualities of the game. People are far more wild than any tool on the table.

[Callan S.]

*snip*

Sure, I can dig that. Except.. what does it have to do with my point? The post I was responding to was asserting that a game like Morrowind somehow allowed you to do whatever you wanted in that setting; this is patently false. You can only do what's been programmed in. Nor was I ever offering any comparisons between GMs and game developers or programmers (pretty sure, anyway..). So.. wha?

So, some questions about commonly held feelings on CRPG's. Because they might deserve questioning. :)

Er? Which questions? Gimmie some bulletpoints and I'd be happy to discuss this further.

From  "Because if the programmers didn't code it in, you can't do it; and none of them have ever managed to simulate all of reality. " I believed your point was that to have all the options, say, one could take advantage of in traditional RP, the game would have to fully simulate reality. If it wasn't your point, that's okay because I took pains to point out this wasn't specifically about your post, its about idea's held in general. I'd presume most others would read this line and presume the same as myself as to what point was being made. If they don't, well I suppose I'm screwed.

Anyway, in responce to what I percieved was "to have all the options, say, one could take advantage of in traditional RP, the game would have to fully simulate reality." my responce is, why should the computer use a technique that traditional RPG's don't use themselves?

As to other questions, their discussed in other posts with other people here.

[Callan S.]

*snip*

Ah, I get it. But it's still a little unclear why you deem realism such a central issue. Has somebody lately argued that's what makes tabletop games better?

I don't deem realism a central issue. I was responding to a post about games not being able to simulate all of reality, thus they can not provide all the options traditional RPG's do. I'm presuming this is a widely held feeling that realism in CRPG's is a central issue, and I went on to respond to that. If it isn't, stop reading here.

Anyway, I agree in that you can indeed see a computer program as a sort of a crippled GM. As I understand it, many people do play D&D in the States in a way more akin to a board- or computer game. Remove all initiative and you effectively get a bad computer game (bad because of handling time issues and such; a computer does those things much better).

Both computer and tabletop games indeed build imaginary constructs in the mind of the player. That's a given, at least in my analysis. There is no more real or less real, there's just more suitable and less suitable. For purposes of immersionism, for example, tabletop is better. Freedom to negotiate your vision of the gameworld wins easily over the graphical edge computer game has. Also the things I'm most interested in, like narrativistic dialogue with other people of my caliber are better dealt with with a tabletop game than any computer program.

Do computer force you to see graphics when they portray an RPG. Or is it a matter of what the public is purchasing, rather than what the tool can or can't do.

[anonymouse]

Aha. I don't think your theory - that the main difference between tabletop and CRPGs is perceived as lack of realism - is right. It's a part, to be sure.

But as other posters have stated in this thread, it's really more about flexibility. With your rock wall analogy.. the issue is whether or not I can climb the wall at -all-, not whether or not it makes me physically sweat and scrape my hands.

Which can tie in with your "bargainer" bit above, about wheeling and dealing with the GM to spin a situation a certain way.

Suspension of disbelief is easy with C(omputer/console) gamers. Whether you get to weave the basket with an arcade sequence or a ten-hour process of harvesting reeds, bending, and a puzzle sequence, the important factor is whether or not the game can physically allow you to weave that basket at all.

[Callan S.]

Aha. I don't think your theory - that the main difference between tabletop and CRPGs is perceived as lack of realism - is right. It's a part, to be sure.

Well, from resonance with memories of other peoples comments on CRPG's from the past, I'm concluding this. The idea that RPG's sim reality and that's why CRPG's are quite different because they don't, from my memory is an often cited reason, though worded in various ways. Then again this is just my memory.

But as other posters have stated in this thread, it's really more about flexibility. With your rock wall analogy.. the issue is whether or not I can climb the wall at -all-, not whether or not it makes me physically sweat and scrape my hands.

Which can tie in with your "bargainer" bit above, about wheeling and dealing with the GM to spin a situation a certain way.

Further, my point is that by buying the games as they are produced now you agree to somthing like a social contract in them. Currently it seems the contract involves there being very little flexibility from the 'GM's part. One might not like having this, but if you've agreed to it, even without realising that your agreement might lead to 'end of map' syndrome or alike, you've agreed.

My continued point is that such 'end of map' type games are not a result of the medium, but of the market. People buy them...nothing changes if the developers keep getting money for it. With some small knowledge of programing myself, I hypothesize much more flexible programs could be produced, because the medium doesn't stop that, only the market stops that.

Suspension of disbelief is easy with C(omputer/console) gamers. Whether you get to weave the basket with an arcade sequence or a ten-hour process of harvesting reeds, bending, and a puzzle sequence, the important factor is whether or not the game can physically allow you to weave that basket at all.

Not sure what you mean? Physically weave it, inside the imagined space? Does it ever physically happen in TRPG's?