Roleplaying once again

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I've been thinking about role playing in roguelikes lately, and even done
some experimenting, and I'd like to share what I came up with.

First, let me define what I'm talking about. No, I don't think that so
called computer role playing games are an equivalent of pen-and-paper role
playing games. I'm fully aware that there's no role playing without
a human to play the role. Even the best AI or world-simulation routine
won't give you much more than the stage to play on. You can disagree if
you want.

However, I think role playing is possible in computer games, and to
a much greater degree than just playing solo. I guess the process is
similar to what we do when dreaming. It's common to meet some persons in
your dreams. These are sometimes persons you know, and sometimes totally
imagined, even impossible. It also happens that you talk to those
persons, or communicate/interact in other ways. Surprisingly, you're not
aware of the fact that this other person is also controlled by you -- you
have no idea how it will respond, until it responds. However, the
phantom's actions aren't free -- they always fit to the plot of your
dream, to the theme, to the personality of a person you know. You're doing
role playing without even knowing it.

I think a similar process, only more conscious, takes place when kids are
playing -- they will even often talk the voices of several of their dolls.
Of course, there's much more control -- but even kids will sometimes
arrive at parts of their store they didn't expect -- because the roles are
such that the situation is unevitable.

This also happens when several kids areplaying together -- but the kids
have to know each other pretty well to act properly, according to their
own expectations.

Ok, that's it. Forgive me this lenghty introduction, but I want to make
sure you know what I'm talking about :3

Now, the question is -- how to encourage role playing? What elements of
a game are good for it, and which of them are bad? Is there anything to
improve? Maybe something new can be designed?

I'll start with what I think is bad. Plot is bad. Story is bad. Rich game
world is bad. Advanced rules and simulations are bad. Nice graphics --
bad. Moody music -- bad.

Ok. You can start the lynch now. Ready your rocks. Here comes an
explanation.

There's nothing as disturbing for an actor, as another actor stepping out
of it's role. Or a piece of decoration doing something unexpected. Or
a voice from back of the stage saying that it's lunchtime, etc.

All the elements Imentioned, and some more, are the material you feed to
the player. It's good when your game is supposed to be like movie -- sit
and watch. Or like some kind of museum or zoo -- walk and watch. You can
choose your route to some extent, you can pick the elements you want to
see closer, you can spend more time watching the pandas -- but it's all
prepared for you, the interaction is inevitably limited. Do not touch the
exhibnits.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with this kind of games.
I really enjoy them. But there's hardly any role playing.

First, you can't really do anything -- everything is set up for you,
you're a beholder, not an actor. Second, you don't need to act, your
imagination is already busy with all the new information coming to you --
you don't really have time for phantasizing. Unless the movie is bad and
you're bored, of course.

Third, and most important in my opinion, even if you do act, something is
going to throw you out of your role and break the suspension of disbelief.
It's because you don't know the scenario, and you don't know your lines --
of course, you can make them up on the fly, (and that's what role playing
is about, ne c'est pas?), but there's a small chance you get them right --
that is, that they'll fit the rest of the scenario. It's a very unpleasant
feeling, and you'll usually say "Hey, it's not supposed to be like this!".

Ok, so what's good for role playing? First of all, *consistent* rules and
simple, easy to anticipate world. Everything must happen as expected,
there should be no surprises fro the player. Note, that you must balance
it with the 'game' and 'challenge' parts of your game -- this is
a trade-off.

Second, it's good when the player has some means of controlling the world.
It's connected with the first condition. I don't mean "Point where this
NPC should move now" kind of control, of course, but I think a role
playing roguelike would be playable even with "instantly kill your
opponent" and "die" commands.

It's best, when the control is indirect, made with some simple rules
mechanics of the game. Something like "if you do this, the NPC will do
this". Those are the strings your unconsciousness will be using when role
playing with you.

Third, you need immersion. You need plot, story, rich game world, advanced
rules and simulations, nice graphics, moody music. Yes, they are bad. Yes,
are required.

Don't get me wrong. You need all of those things, but you don't need them
all the time. They break your acting, but you don't have to always be
acting. You need them, because you have to know what you're going to act.

Of course, someone with rich and powerful imagination can do without this.
He doesn't need some puny eye-candy to suspend his disbelief. But there
are only a few such masters, and they are usually too busy writing books
to play roguelike games .

If you work for a normal player, you have to feed his imagination. You
need parts of your game that are movie-like, not stage-like. Maybe some
predefined dialogues, maybe some movies or movie-like sequences, maybe
background information, maybe some nice graphics. You need them to ignite
the player's imagination and to keep it burning.

Of course, you don't have to put all this material in your game. If it's
a popular theme, most of the work is already done by books, movies, etc.
on the subject. Gotta be careful not to contradict them, however, unless
you want to provide your own imagination fodder.

You can put the materials in your game guide, on your web site, distribut
them with your game on a cd, or anything else. You can try to build
a community to extend the role playing beyound the game.

Those are the most important factors encouraging role playing, in my
opinion. Of course, you still need some other -- accessories, costumes,
decorations, etc. -- but you can do without them.

What do you think? Is there something more than can be done?

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
<..> ] 0110110?
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:03:02 GMT,
<edward@lore.net> wrote:

> The Sheep <thesheep@ sheep.prv.pl> wrote:

> My point is this: our imaginations are far richer than any
> multi-threaded pre-scripted plot. If you're going to offer a plot, make
> *every* part of it meaningful, or leave it out entirely because the
> background imagination is better. If you offer choices, make them
> meaningful, even if it's just a meaningful illusion when there is a
> single choice. As has been stated before in this NG, good / neutral /
> evil dialogue does not constitute roleplaying in any form, offers no
> meaningful choice or illusion (for me, at least).

Well, I think you're right if you're talking about the games where the
role playing is supposed to be encouraged. But you see, there are those
two approaches -- the movie-game, and the toy-game. The first one seems
to be more popular lately, but they wax and wane periodically.

The toy-game only gives you something to play with, and it's good for role
playing because you can use it as your stage.

The movie-game only gives you content -- the story, the characters, the
setting, the graphics, the special effects, the music, the mood, the
message. It's also good for role playing, because it gives you the script,
or materials for the script.

Both kinds of games are needed and important (well, they can be both
substituted with different media, of course).

My point is, that if you are going to mix these approaches, you've got to
be extra careful, because they don't mix very well. The best you can
achieve is kind of layered cake -- some parts sweet, some bland, but when
eaten together -- excellent.

> Make the display visually appealing because it helps immersion; Moria,
> textmode Nethack, and Ultima VI all do this, whereas in my view many
> graphical RLs fail here. Monochrome ASCII is far more visually appealing
> and immersive than bad graphics.

I tend to agree on this one, but there's no need to tie yourself to the
text mode if you need some additional means of expressing some things.
However, with graphics you've got to be extra careful -- because of
greater freedom you can make something unacceptable.

> Including music in any form is a waste of time in computer games, from
> my point of view. I'll turn it off, even if this means replacing
> E6 61
> with
> 90 90
> hex codes in old DOS exes.
> I might want to listen to Wumpscut, Rammstein, Emmylou Harris, Mozart's
> mass in C minor, or any of the rest of the multitude depending on my
> mood, and no game has ever satisfied me musically. Don't waste time
> there.
> Those of us who enjoy pen and paper roleplaying will never find the
> *same* experience in a computer game, but an enjoyable, immersive game
> can tap into many emotional triggers set up by those games, as well as
> every good movie and book we have ever experienced.

Here I'd disagree. I know I'm very heavily influenced by the music
I listen while playing. Music is very important in the movie-like parts of
the game, to set up the mood. It can be also helpful in the role playing
parts, provided it's not too distracting and fits the general mood -- but
it's sometimes easy to guess the roles the player will be playing,
especially in certain settings.

The only times I actually was so moved by the game that I cried were
mainly because of the music.

Right, there should be always an option to disable the music -- because
the tastes differ, and the effect of music on our moods differs too --
what's perfectly acceptable for you might be disturbing for me.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(`') 3 Grrr!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .