Opinion on Roleplaying Games *REDUX*

For this next editorial, I thought I'd syndicate one of my older blogs. This is a revised re-write on the blog I posted on Gamespot. I believe the content is too good to pass up. Without further adieu, read on.

Roleplaying games (RPGs) have been with us for quite a while, starting with the paper and pencil days of the 80s to the currently more tech savvy games available in the market. In scrutiny of these RPGs, I've always felt strongly about how these games should be made and in my opinion, very few game developers really do get the essence of an RPG. There's a slew of them in the market, Japanese developers, Western developer and European ones try their hand to deliver great RPGs. But what is it that they focus more of that makes the game eligible as being categorized 'RPGs'? How are they considered RPGs at all? Is it the level counter of your character? Is it the experience points?

In my opinion, all of those do help. They are trappings, machinations if you will, that assist but do not define roleplaying games at its essence.

Before we continue, allow me quote from two Dungeons and Dragons books:

"Role-playing games are much like radio adventures, except for one important detail: they're interactive. One player provides the narrative and some dialogue, but the other players, instead of just sitting and envisioning what's going on, actually participate. Each player controls the actions of a character in the story, decides on his actions, supplies his character's dialogue, and makes decisions based on the character's personality and his current game options."

~Dungeons and Dragons Rulescyclopedia.

"This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of a character and then guides that character through an adventure. The player makes decisions, interacts with other characters and players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game. That doesn't mean that the player must jump up and down, dash around, and act like his character. It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action."

~Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, Player's Handbook

These two quotes particularly encapsulate the entire idea, but few games ever grasp. As I have mentioned earlier, these so-called RPG trappings: level counters, experience points, magic, etc. They all are utilities that assist in the role-playing aspect, but do not define an RPG.

With more experience points for instance, a player can surmise that he gains more knowledge and perhaps is more able to perform certain feats. And with the existence of experience points and levels, it becomes entirely possible for the player to perform such feats. The same could be said by gaining more hit points, and magic points. However, these concepts merely hint at what the roleplayer can perform and not what the character can do.

Japanese developers often show cinematic videos, but how are you really participating in all this? The breathtaking views that you see do not translate at all to how you would react. The protagonist is shown and he decides based on a written script. In short, you aren't even participating at all. You're a mere spectator in a film roll that is triggered when you get to certain points. They assist in story telling, that is for sure, but it does not give you, the roleplayer, the independence to decide for him or herself what the character should do or react.

Dungeon crawling and all that monster killing are yet again, tools in the adventure. They provide the action, but within these particular activities, there are opportunities to allow the player to put himself to the shoes of the character. However, the actual activities aren't part of the definition of an RPG. When the player's objectives is to find monsters to level up, it's the absolute failure of an RPG by allowing the player play with a context that's absolutely and entirely outside the game lore.

Very little Western RPGs understand this concept either, choosing to automate different actions that assists in gameplay elements such as traveling. However, they also often than not leave the more important core of what makes an RPG an RPG. There is a focus on action, but that in itself is not part of roleplaying. They provide the abilities to give players quests and give simple yes or no types of choices, extract information that is quest relevant, but there is still many layers missing in all of this.

It is to no fault of either developers that CRPGs tend to falter to grasp the very essence of an RPG. The core of it tends to depend on something that is completely difficult to emulate. Very rarely do I find developers that come close to this very definition and much more successes on true RPGs linger towards the MMO-realm.

That is not to say a lot of CRPGs are terrible. In fact, they are pretty good in their own rights in achieving what is being set out by developers. These games are pretty good adventures, but one thing they aren't are role-playing games.

Allow me to quote Gary Gygax:

"As to what computer games have done to role-playing, virtually nothing. The so-called CRPG isn't role-playing. To whom does one role-play in such an exercise? However, I like what is now offered as a CRPG, and know that as AI improves, these games *will* involve actual role-play."

~Gamespy Interview

"They are really action-adventure games with a few RPG elements added. With AI improving, though that will change."

~WomenGamers.com Interview

Gary Gygax hit the nail on its head with his thoughts. The best most games have done so far is to be an action adventure with certain roleplaying elements. There are some cases where developers get extremely close at building games that capture the essence. These are often very special games when they do achieve that.

Mr. Gygax's quote is a specially very interesting one too. To whom does one roleplay in such gaming activities? In my opinion, roleplaying in games should be done within the context of the game itself. That means the act of roleplay is done to the character you meet, or the event that you come across. Roleplaying games, after all, are very social in nature. The very definition of a character by the player is often defined by what social contact he may encounter. Whether he meets a straggler in the streets, or a lady he is smitten by, or a hideous monster lurking in the dark, there are always different reactions, possibly infinite of them. In my opinion, this is ultimately what is downplayed in CRPGs. The social contact you have is either to slaughter, to sneak past enemies, to converse only to get a quest, or to converse to get a reward or item. These activities produce a very dead world. There is no act of social contact that expounds based on a live society and there is little reward when actually making the attempt to linger in its social realm.

MMORPGs have things quite easy with this respect. Social contact is almost impossible to miss in these games. When your action is received and reciprocated by an actual live person, the reactions create a dynamism that is missed in many CRPGs. Social contact, in my opinion, is what is deficient.

CRPGs can create controlled dynamics for social contact. This, I believe is what Gary refers to when he speaks of the use of AI. Creating actual intelligence is inherently impossible with finite machines, but it is possible to create a game world that provides more options, and more actions that may not necessarily contribute to the actual main plot, but allows the players a characterization that fully assists him in socializing and, more importantly, roleplaying.