'Roleplaying' in Games

[Terminal Blue]

Just to clarify, this isn't another thread bitching at Dragon Age 2. DA2 actually did a lot of things right in my book, it certainly felt like a step in the right direction.

But on a general level I'm starting to get annoyed at the way 'roleplaying' works in games. The term has become become synonymous with statistical progression. When we say a shooter or action game has RPG elements what we actually mean is not that you're playing a role (after all, you're kind of doing that in almost all games nowadays) but that your character 'levels up' over time to gain new and better abilities.

Back in the golden age of D&D that kind of assumption made sense because it's how D&D worked, but as a frequent pen and paper role-player I'm starting to find the comparison annoying. I've played in roleplaying groups where diceless play is the norm, or where XP isn't given at all but the GM periodically alters a character's stats based on what they've done in game.

It's not that I can't see how the XP/level up system (whichever form it takes) is so widely used. It gives a player definite and quantifiable rewards which encourage them to keep playing ('If I kill three more boars I can be slightly better at killing boars!') What I resent is the assumption that this reward system has to be the basis of computer roleplaying, rather than say interacting via a role or establishing a narrative.

I mean, even just on a very basic level, what about an RPG where you don't ever get to see your stats and the game merely adjusts based on choices you make. Why is it so important that you, the player, should see and have control of how your character develops? Is it really just covering for the difficulty in computer RPGs of really representing how your character develops as a character?

I think a lot of this is based on other things I find weird or unnecessary about crpgs (generic/Campbell-esque story structures, emphasis on giving as much choice as possible at the expense of meaning, blank slate protagonists) but I'll keep the post short for now and ask what you think.

 

[Veylon]

I mean, even just on a very basic level, what about an RPG where you don't ever get to see your stats and the game merely adjusts based on choices you make. Why is it so important that you, the player, should see and have control of how your character develops? Is it really just covering for the difficulty in computer RPGs of really representing how your character develops as a character?

I'd say yes. The one thing the player has control of in an RPG is their character's stats. Take that away and the player has that much less stake in the game.

Having a character develop "as a character" is a monumental challenge and is incredibly wasteful. Suppose that you enter a town and hear that there's a curse that causes everyone to turn into werewolves every full moon. The average RPG will force the character to stay there until they uncover the secret and break the curse. Allowing the player any say in the plot would force developers to create many alternate scenarios with associated staging, art assets, voices, etc. All this gets expensive, and that's why there's so little involvement by the player in RPGs today.

Personally, I'm willing to take a hit on graphics and give up voiced characters if it would get me more say in the story.

 

[Anah'ya]

mmm rp

I RP more in Single Player RPGs than most people I know. Not sure where that is coming from, might be my failed attempts at being a writer myself, but I always find myself considering situations and other characters in more detail than the game offers. Which, I suppose, is why I enjoy RPGs akin to the ones BioWare is making the most, since they give me a very good basic to work on already.

In other words: RPGs, to this Taffer, are never about stats, combat or not even necessarily about the goal of the story in the game. Those are bonuses. RPGs are about the characters development and my investment into them and their companions.

Just like an MMO. I'd rather spend the time RPing in them, than chasing down levels and epix.

 

[Shymer]

Allowing the player any say in the plot would force developers to create many alternate scenarios with associated staging, art assets, voices, etc. All this gets expensive, and that's why there's so little involvement by the player in RPGs today.

That's assuming that a mission-based design is the right one for the kind of RPG we are talking about.

The original Elite was essentially a role-playing game without missions - you could forge whatever character, follow whatever career the universe allowed. Unfortunately only a few careers were economically advantageous and interesting - but with more consideration of each career (perhaps making mining dangerous and rewarding) - one could imagine a game with the same kind of sense of freedom but without the slavish reliance on missions.

This model was improved on (IMO) by Space Rangers 2 - which made other careers possible and created an overall threat to the procedurally generated universe, which could be tackled in a number of ways - direct action, investment in others, lassaiz-faire or even by exploitation.

I felt Morrowind came close to offering the same kind of freedom - the bits I enjoyed most were not following scripted missions, but rather deciding to clear out the local necromancer's cave so I could set up my home there and then striking out to explore abandoned ruins. I felt Oblivion was a step backwards in that regard - leaning more heavily on scripted missions and losing some of the joy.

However - I suspect that the economics of game development today makes it unlikely that developers would take a risk on a 'blank slate' game like that - because probably a minority of gamers prefer open worlds where you create a role for yourself.

Back to the dice and books then...

 

[Azure-Supernova]

To the OP: I don't think videogames have quite captured the essence to tabletop RPGs just yet. I've played numerous RPGs and just as many tabletop ones. I can safely say that they have two very different definitions of roleplaying. It seems that in an effort to replicated tabletops RPGs have taken certain core aspects and used it to create the link between the two. Unfortunately it's just a complete distraction in some games.

'Efficient Leveling' in TES IV: Oblivion requires such a rigid play style, it's a wonder anyone gets any questing done when they're focusing on training specific skills to get 5 in each attribute.

I RP more in Single Player RPGs than most people I know.

You're not alone there haha. I'm also a bit of an amateur writer, so it's quite possibly a manifestation of passion. Fallout and The Elder Scrolls have some of the most convoluted stories thanks to my mind.

 

[Bane_Star]

where is the 'THUMBS UP' button, the 'give this thread some points' system,

I've been working on the design doc for such a game for a while now, and hired a programmer to start the engine.. its alot of work, and I doubt I'll have a 'finished' version ever, but the concept seems to be something alot of people are really beginning to recognise..

I'm going for a dwarf fortress/minecraft style of development, make something, make it accessable, improve it while people play it. so if you want to contribute or just play test it. let me know.

 

[iFail69]

I RP in single player RPGs all the time, and I'm bad at RPing evil characters, I LACK THE WILLPOWER TO BE NASTY TO NPCs I don't want to hurt their little AI emotions (Unless it's DA:O, but the nasty responses in that are just too comical xD)

I have a friend who RPs in WoW and she says that they emote fight rather than actually duke it out, seems fair as long as both parties have common sense