MMORPGs; totally alien from P&PRPGs??
Moreno R.:
Quote from: soundmasterj on November 16, 2008, 03:07:24 AM
My question now is this. Is there narrativist play without SIS? Is the fact that I canīt think of any narr play without SIS a technical problem or an essential fact of SIS?
I can tell you my experience in playing "live" games, without a common SIS (it's a situation rather similar to a MMORPG from this point of view: you can play without a CA because you can simply avoid people who disrupt your play. In tabletop games you would have to find another group to do so).
In these games, I have seen that the only way to get to play "story now" START by getting a SIS together (all the people have to be in the same place and everybody have to see and listen to anything others do). Then there are other techniques, but the first step is always getting a SIS together.
I think you can have "role-playing" without a SIS (like in most live games), but you can't have "story now" without one, Without one, everybody play pretty much for himself, there is no "story".
soundmasterj:
Of course, the shared assumption here is that play where exploration without SIS is the highest priority is still sim, just not roleplaying-in-Big Model-terms sim and that stepping on up in context of obstacles not in the SIS is still gam, just not Big Model RPG gam. Otherwise, none of the CAs works without SIS; and thatīs what Big Model states, exploration through SIS as highest priority makes for sim, overcoming challenge in SIS through stepping on up makes for gam. So Big Model says MMORPGs are mostly neither RPGs in Big Model terms nor gam/sim.
However, to me, MMORPG as challenge and as primarily exploration feels a lot similar similar to sim and gam P&P RPGS. When I play a computer game with my friends, I talk just like I talk and get excited just like I get excited when I play shadowrun. Gamism, I think, depends on shared value which in Big Model RPGs takes on the form of SIS; Sim depends on something to explore which in a Big Model RPG is in SIS, but might also be experienced in other forms of play all alone.
So my next question is, is there anything that SIS-less games will never be able to do on principle that is inherently supporting gamism? Because when I play shadowrun, i use the SIS as a medium of tactical positioning thatīs a lot more flexible than a hex map or a MMORPG. But MMORPGs will get more flexible. Which gamism-supporting rules are easily articulated in context of an SIS, but not in context of a computer game?
Caldis:
I have some experience with MMO's but not a lot, for purposes of this post I'll be talking mostly about my experience playing WOW. Take that as a frame of reference and consider that other games have a notably different play experience.
I think you can use the big model to look at certain aspects of MMO's but the thing you have to remember is that it is dealing with group goals so considering that itch in your head that's getting satisfied by play isnt enough. What you need to see is how a bunch of people act together overtime.
So wanting to travel and see new scenery isnt a sign of sim in one person but if you have a group that are committed to doing it it can be. In most mmo's I've played that's not enough to keep anyones interest for long usually there are many more things like in WOW you dont just travel to a new ares for the scenery, you travel to find new quests that keep you interacting with the environment. The environment usually isnt very challenging and even if you do rush into something a little to tough for you the penalties for dieing are small. In a lot of areas it's much more efficient to travel with a group so if you bring a group of people together and they are all agreed on exploring this area and doing this bunch of quests you have something approaching functional sim. There is a built in reward cycle of levelling up, qualifying for new quests and eventually outgrowing an area and being directed to a new one with a whole new set of quests and an environment to explore.
Played differently WoW supports gamism as well. It's mostly in raiding or the battlegrounds. Raids are much more challenging and the rewards and cost of failure can be quite a bit higher. If you are far enough into a raid and you end up with the group getting wiped it often causes people to bail out on the attempt and makes the group miss out on the rare items that you can acquire only in the raid. The group make up in this style play is usually much more exlusive as well. Players are chosen based on their ability to play smart and not accidently pull extra enemies to the group.
Vulpinoid:
Quote from: Moreno R. on November 16, 2008, 05:21:03 AM
I think you can have "role-playing" without a SIS (like in most live games), but you can't have "story now" without one, Without one, everybody play pretty much for himself, there is no "story".
Sorry, but I think this requires more explanation...and even though I admit that this explanation is getting away from the topic of this thread, It's got me intrigued.
I would have considered "Live Roleplaying" without and SIS to be Real Life...it's where we go through the motions of social interaction with the people around us, we commit violence at the risk of repercussions, we strive to advance ourselves, or sacrifice degrees of self-advancement to further the community around us.
Once you step into a "Live Gaming Space", whether that is an MMORPG or physically dressing up in costume, you leave certain real world conventions behind. Suddenly you have access to skills, powers or setting that is different from your mundane life and thus a realm of shared imagination is born. I would have though that it is the agreement of certain imagination parameters that forms the basis of the SIS. The SIS is born as soon as two or more people agree on an imagination parameter.
Two people get onto a server or LAN and play a game of WoW, and they are playing a role in a world that they've agreed apon. If one player is using a bunch of mods to re-invent their WoW experience into a Middle Earth Paradigm, then suddenly they don't share the same imagination space and the communications become irrelevant. If they both use these mods, then the SIS is re-established.
Two people walk into a room in period costume and start talking to one another, it's just regular talking. If they start putting on accents or referring to historical events as though personally taking part in them, then roleplaying is born and an SIS develops.
From this perspective (and please argue with me if you think it's a skewed view), all roleplaying has an SIS at it's core...
Gamist play seeks to dominate that space (or at least dominate and overpower the other members sharing it).
Simulationist play seeks to explore that space (to identify its boundaries and its differences with the "real world").
Narrativist play seeks to develop stories within the space (to evolve it and to move it in new directions).
Without an SIS, gamist play is just a competition of dice rolls/card draws/one-upmanship, I don't think it's roleplaying at all, because there are no roles being played. Once a role is played and someone else accepts that the person is playing a role, there is an SIS.
Whether the second party accepts to take part in the SIS is another matter entirely.
Just my thoughts.
V
soundmasterj:
Why oh why did I bring up the dreaded terminology in the first place!
Vulpinoid, pixels on a computer screen arenīt what SIS means. SIS means that something is only "there" if and because we agree it is. Us playing WoW, you watching over my shoulder while I level my orc dude, me thinking thereīs an orc running around in Azeroth, you thinking thereīs just some pixels on a computer screen doesnīt change the fact that we see an orc running around. (Of course, as Iīve shown there is some SIS in MMORPGs). Us playing D&D, me saying itīs an orc Iīm rolling dice against, you saying youīre not playing anymore, you want to play Yathzee now, that changes a lot about that orc. We are no longer sharedly imagining it. Thatīs why the second orc is a SIS orc, the first one isnīt.
If we played WoW together and you were using a mod that made all of your pixels different, that might not influence SIS in the slighest. Say we imagine my guy and your guy hating each other. Thaīs SIS (because obviously, our guys donīt hate anybody, theyīre just pixels, and you and me, we like each other, otherwise we wouldnīt be playing together). If you see my guy as a Tolkien orc while I see him as a WoW orc, it doesnīt need to influence what we agree about him at all (it could, though).
Quote
From this perspective (and please argue with me if you think it's a skewed view), all roleplaying has an SIS at it's core...
We already did in this thread. Big Model says itīs roleplaying if there is SIS. However, there are thing most people would call "roleplaying activity" where no SIS is required; the Big Model says itīs not roleplaying in the Big Model sense, but we say it might be roleplaying in the sense that itīs for example a computer game where some rules are somewhat like D&D.
If we LARP and I donīt care what you think, I just want to hit you on the head with my fake sword and you want to poke me in the groin with your fake spear, there is no SIS. Still, Iīd call it roleplaying; not Big Model roleplaying though. There is nothing to argue about.
Quote
Whether the second party accepts to take part in the SIS is another matter entirely.
What? How would we agree without you taking part in the agreement? You mean, the second party doesnīt have to take on a role on itīs own? If so, I think Iīd agree. It means that when I make up a story and you agree that thatīs what happened in the story, itīs roleplaying. Sounds somewhat weird, but I think it holds.
Well, originaly I brought SIS up because Bartlesī HCDS talked about action on the world without interaction amongst players whereas in P&P RPG, there is no such thing. Therefore, I concluded, HCDS wasnīt too usefull in context of for P&P RPGs. I stand by that point; Iīd like to know where there actually IS SIS in MMORPGs (besides sex). MUDs seem to be full of it, but WoW? When I played WoW (all 5 minutes of it), I didnīt sharedly imagine anything.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page