A commonly expressed complaint about MMORPGs, and computer RPGs in general, are that they are not really “roleplaying” games. This type of commentary has tapered off somewhat in the past few years, but it can still be found regularly if you cruise various forums and commentary sites. It almost invariably leads to some form of argument, as someone disagrees, and another person notes that they could roleplay in some other “non-RP” game, but not in this one, and so on, and so forth…
I’ve had occasion in the past week or so to be a part of a few discussions with a variety of gamers (both computer and “traditional”) on the topic of “roleplaying”. It would seem, based on that (limited) feedback, that there is still a significant disconnect between various “types” of gamers, in terms of just what a “roleplaying game” is.
Computer gamers are generally comfortable calling a game a roleplaying game if allows for
- the advancement of ability of a single individual/entity in significant ways (via levels, skills, equipment); and
- direct player control of said individual/entity.
There is some grey around the edges, but that generally sums up the aspects that come to mind for the computer-centric gamer. They may still disagree whether a specific title that has those elements is “really an RPG”, however.
In the pen-and-paper RPG world, the definitions are somewhat different, and much more “fuzzy”. There is no stated requirement for an advancement model of any sort, although it is generally preferred. Direct control of one’s character is an expectation, but occasional loss of control and indirect control of other entities is expected as well. Some form of human GM/referee/judge is usually assumed as well, tho exceptions are allowed and noted… in general, there is no one trait that is accepted as central to the experience, more like a “2 out of 3 is close enough” philosophy seems to rule the day.
Regardless, long time pen-and-paper roleplayers generally scoff at the majority of computer RPGs (especially MMOs) that refer to themselves as roleplaying games, but cannot generally identify, if pressed, what exactly is missing… the common quote is ”it’s just not the same”.
LARPers are a subset of roleplaying gamers even further removed from the computer RPGs of today. My one contact with that style of play says it’s the “lack of immersion” that turns him off to computer games, and makes him question whether it is roleplaying: he doesn’t feel like he’s part of the setting, but instead just observing it. He also mentioned lack of interpersonal interaction as an issue.
As someone who has been long familiar with both pen-and-paper and computer gaming, and who loves both, I have my own definition of what roleplaying is, of course. I think I’ve written about this before, but I’ll just plow ahead here and repeat myself, and open it up for discussion if anyone is interested.
Short and sweet: interactive storytelling. Roleplaying is allowing a player to tell his/her own story, within an established setting, and preferably in conjunction with other players doing the same thing.
MMOs and CRPGs generally fall short because they don’t allow the player to tell their own story… instead, they largely hand the player a script to act out. To me, games like Wasteland/Fallout, Obsidian, UO, and SWG, (“sandbox” games?) earned their kudos as roleplaying games simply because they provided levels of flexibility that allowed very wide ranges of people to create/tell their own story within the setting they provided.
The source of statements like “PvP is required for roleplaying”, and how multiple people can hold multiple opinions on the subject ranging from agreement to disdain, are explained by this definition as well. The story Player A wants to tell requires PvP; Player B’s story does not… of course they will disagree about how “necessary” it is for roleplaying, if my definition is correct.
So, what do you think? Am I somewhat on-target, or way off-base? And regardless… do you think MMOs are (or can be) roleplaying games, and what features do you look for to accept a game as an RPG?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 1, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Lucifrank
I think describing role-playing as interactive storytelling is a pretty damn good definition. Many of your standard console games are branded RPGs when there is any slim element of character customization through advancement, e.g. buying skills or abilities or upgrading weapons. I wouldn’t use that definition simply because the story you’re playing through in most console games are rigidly scripted and there are a markedly finite number of paths your “character” can follow. You’re not really “writing” your character’s story through the action in the game, you’re following a predefined story to get from beginning to end.
My definition is a bit flawed though, because I do consider old single player PC games like the Ultima series, the Bard’s Tale Series, and the Wizardry series as RPGs even though they don’t offer half the options current MMOs do. When I discovered these sorts of games in the early eighties, it was novel enough to be able to name your party members and play in a world that essentially followed a similar structure to playing pen-and-paper D&D with hit points, armor class, and level-based advancement.
Sure, these games feature elements of RPGs and lack the full breadth and depth pen-and-paper offered at the time, but for the technology available then, they opened new worlds for many of us. Computers weren’t advanced enough to give us the largely open world environments we can tool around in today.
December 2, 2007 at 10:04 am
Aaron
I think that’s a pretty good definition as well. Roleplaying is when the gamer perceives, to varying extents, his or her character’s actions from a 1st-person perspective. Not 1st-person in the visual sense, but in the narrative sense.
The tricky part is that a game mechanic that induces roleplay in what player’s experience won’t have as great an effect on another player. For some gamers, tweakable stats and skills are enough, even in a fixed plot environment. For other gamers, dialogue options are more effective; or camera placement, or visual molding, etc.
The effect is basically the same for all gamers, but different gamers are more or less susceptible to different methods of roleplay encouragement.
December 4, 2007 at 4:12 am
p@tsh@t
I think you’re on target. This is a minor hobby horse of mine too. Let me tell my story through my character and give me the degrees of freedom to do so.
Some shotgun thoughts:
In table top, we used to actually role play. In computer games, we simply play roles (tank, healer, dps…). We are a nation of superheroes, all above average.
In table top, the GM was the referee, not the narrator. Our old groups were like that cartoon where the character is furiously laying new track in front of a speeding locomotive and trying to redirect its direction with each piece of track. Our GM may have had plans for us, but we had our own plans, and sometimes our chaotic evil players were, well, chaotically evil. As a matter of fact, some of our best sessions were mostly free form riffs, well off whatever master plan our GM may have prepped for. This is sadly missing from every single MMO or SP RPG.
The best they can do is provide massively parallel progression along a predefined plot arc. Turn down the plot dial, and you have a diffuse sandbox where there a no truly exceptional achievements. Turn up the plot dial and you have tightly scripted–even compelling story, but utterly devoid of uniqueness. An amusement park ride. Lets all go kill Van Cleef one more time, shall we?
I’m reminded of the swirl of speculation around Marvel Universe and thinking, crap, how are they going to do that? I don’t want to be Daddy Long Legs Man, the wanna be Spiderman. Do I get to be a bus driver in Gotham City? Not sure there’s any story there I would want to be part of. Thats why CoX actually works…
At least Tolkien gave us a world and a transcendant everyman story that we could imagine ourselves in. Maybe not the prime narrative, but contextually relevant active participation seems reachable, though diminished from the main story.
The closest thing to interactive story telling that might be implemented in an MMO would be the exact opposite of Eve (my proxy for a sandbox). Eve’s greatest virtue, and perhaps its greatest vice, is that it forever affords total freedom– learn the skills and you can be whoever you want to be.
That’s not enough conflict for me and conflict (of some kind) is the heart of every good story. Eve leaves every door open. To tell a story, you need to close doors. Often closed doors will drive a character in another direction– albeit conflicted. Thats drama and interesting to me.
When choices you make in game have a permanent and lasting effect (and more than I blew the X quest so I never got my Uber bracelet…), you’re starting to bridge the gap from playing a role to actually role playing. How to do that times a million players simultaneously is the tough bit. That’s why we’re just bloggers…
December 4, 2007 at 5:31 am
damianov
@Lars: I think the bar has been raised substantially over the years, as well. I’d agree that Wizardry, Ultima, and Bard’s Tale were solid RPGs within the limits of the technology… part of the disappointment for me, at least, is that the technology has advanced by leaps and bounds… and the gameplay (not the presentation, but the core game) hasn’t kept pace.
@Aaron: agreed, the different needs/expectations of the wide range of participants is the question mark hovering over the question, to me. Can anyone come up with a way to satisfy vast swaths of people all at once, without just falling back to lowest-common-denominator? And if they can, is it worth the time and effort, from a financial viewpoint?
@p@tsh@t: I was never really all that excited about the Marvel or DC universe MMOs, I have to admit… in part, I suppose, because CoH gives me all the Superhero fix I need. I really haven’t seen what I’d call a compelling design presentation yet for those games/settings, tho.
I think sandbox games are a step in the right direction, in terms of creating drama and narrative. I think that the issue is that systems for handling all the other aspects of character definition are underdeveloped. When I was regularly GMing, I had only two types of information that I tracked religiously: 1) relationships, and 2) future events. Who currently likes/dislikes/hates/distrusts/worships who (and why), and what is currently “going to happen” unless something is done about it first?
(An aside: reminds me of one of my favorite corollaries to Murphy’s Law, “Whatever can go wrong, will… unless someone makes it their business to make damn sure it doesn’t.”)
If either of those two types of information is currently tracked in any current MMO, it’s done too with too much subtlety or at too rudimentary a level to be noticeable. EQ/WoW Faction is too broad, CoH contacts are too one-dimensional. Events like AC and Horizons are a start, but too big, individual players are unlikely to have a truly direct impact.
To get back to the original thought, constraints don’t necessarily need to be applied to the character’s selection of abilities in order to create drama: choices in terms of who they decide to interact with, how they interact, what events they choose to insinuate themselves into vs. which they don’t, and how that impacts their options going forward… those are the types of decisions that should come into play.
Eve leaves that entirely in the players hands, which would be the best option if players were always and continuously self-motivated… most aren’t. Some _subtle_ direction is generally appreciated at one point or another, and my impression is that Eve doesn’t have any mechanisms yet to offer that. (Let me know if I’m wrong there, please… my experience in Eve is admittedly limited.) However, it is still probably one of the best hopes at present for eventually getting to what I would consider to be the next level of RP…