Just Die: Against "Real" Role-playing Games

[News Reader]

Just Die: Against "Real" Role-playing Games
Point: If only computer RPGs could match up to Pen and Papers RPGs. You know - real RPGs.
Counterpoint: Piss-right off.

Author: Kieron Gillen
Category: RockPaperShotgun "Real" Roleplaying Games feature Tabletop-Roleplaying
Publish Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:25:22 +0000



Point: If only computer RPGs could match up to Pen and Papers RPGs. You know - real RPGs.

Counterpoint: Piss-right off.

(more...)



Read more... - Read comments...

Source: Rock, Paper, Shotgun

[Dog Pants]

Interesting article. Personally I don't really see any conflict - both do different parts very well, and appeal for different reasons. There are a lot of snobby P&P players out there though, and they're not only the sort who give P&P games a bad name, they're also the ones who will put people off playing. I've played games with them, they're elitist idiots, I now avoid them.

I don't quite agree with Kieron though. For those who can't be arsed to read the article, he claims (based on a study some bloke did) that the RPG experience is broken down into game, simulation, and narrative. The game is playing the rules to overcome a problem. The simulation is the experience of the game world. The narrative is the story of your characters. Gillen argues that computer RPGs have all the game, tabletop RPGs have all the narrative, and they both meet at simulation.

I'd argue that while CRPGs obviously have a greater element of game, playing the rules of a TRPG is equally justified as being a game, it's just proportionally not as vital to the whole experience. Narrative, on the other hand, is often told equally well by both. You might not have the level of versatility with your character's actions and development in a CRPG, but the props you get are vastly superior to having a (not always good) GM describe everything. I'd say simulation is the CRPG's weak point, as it's only really pseudo-simulation. No computer based game world is as freeform and alive as a tabletop's, as the computer can't generate fresh and original content on the fly. However, often the locales and environments you do encounter are far more detailed and absorbing.

So really, as he says, they're different games catering to different strengths. Personally I love both, and as much as I wish there could be a crossover I wouldn't criticise one over the strengths of the other. What they really could do is compliment each other, like D&D does with D&DO, NWN, etc.

[HereComesPete]

I've never really bumped into many elitists, but the few I have I safely ignore as the bad smelling, klingon spouting, pocket protector wearing uber-geeks (in a couple of cases this isn't generalisation, it's specific fact)

I also fail to see the delineation as clear cut as Gillen states, I think as long as you can suspend disbelief and engage in catharsis to an extent then even mediocre products are engaging then you'll be rewarded by any game you play.

Of course my fevered brain is possibly a bad example of interaction with fantasy and sci-fi as I actually got told off by my shrink for the levels of attention I divert toward my SR campaigns and books. She asked me to take in some notes and recoiled at the state of my imagination after reading some of the reams of back story I've generated.

Anyway, De Gaultier had it right when he said 'Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality'.

[Joose]

Ah, Mr Gillen. No doubt a very intelligent guy, but he does have a tendency towards pretentious ass at times.

Firstly, although I agree with him that anyone saying a p&p RPG is "real" and "better" is being an elitist twat, I would also hasten to add that anyone saying computer RPG's are better because they are less nerdy is similarly twatish. And possibly a little delusional.

Secondly, I totally disagree with his definitions of the twos strengths and weaknesses. He is clearly judging p&p RPGs based on his own experience alone, which hits an obvious flaw: Not everyone in the world is the same as him and his mates. Yes, there is a tendancy for them to be more about narrative and less about game (I know our games tend to follow that pattern), but you only have to spend a few minutes on somewhere like Dumpshock to realise that some people treat it more like a wargame, where the narrative is just a way to describe what the rules are telling you are the results of your actions. People do not get into hundred page long debates over the best character builds or the strict interpretation of RAW if they are primarily focusing on the narrative. Plus, of course, you can only say the narrative is a strong or weak point on a case by case basis: Ive been in p&p RPG's where the narrative sucked ass because the GM was just not very good at it. Ive also played computer RPG's where the narrative was much stronger than the gameplay (I would put Mass Effect 1 in that catagory. It was the story that made we want to carry on playing, not how much fun I was having with the clunky combat and shitty driving sections.)

Finally, although I agree with the general point he is making in the article itself (Different!=better or worse), I totally disagree with his lead thing:

Point: If only computer RPGs could match up to Pen and Papers RPGs. You know - real RPGs.
Counterpoint: Piss-right off.

Yeah, its worded badly. But make the "point" part less inflammatory and elitist, and I would agree with it. An rpg on my computer that had all the strengths of p&p (true freedom of what I can do, massive array of options for character creation and background, ability to play through in what is basically an awesome kind of co-op game) but with all the strengths of a computer game (not having to look up rules all the time, having all the maths done for you, pretty pictures and sounds)? Yes fucking please.

[Dog Pants]

An rpg on my computer that had all the strengths of p&p (true freedom of what I can do, massive array of options for character creation and background, ability to play through in what is basically an awesome kind of co-op game) but with all the strengths of a computer game (not having to look up rules all the time, having all the maths done for you, pretty pictures and sounds)? Yes fucking please.

There's no reason why this can't be done, apart from perhaps there not being enough people interested for it to make a profit. Certainly the maths side of things wouldn't even be too hard. I've mentioned a few times a system of collaborative documents (character sheets, maps), along with a web interface that can do the rules for you. For example, if the GM could plug in a bunch of opponents, with combat stats, modifiers, and location in relation to players, the players could then just click an 'attack' button. Imagine a system for SLA where you could post your action for a phase by clicking a radio button for aim, attack, shoot etc, and it tracked everyone. It's not too difficult, but would go a long way to speeding the game up. Extrapolate that to a system with graphical representation of a combat area, and the computer working out environmental modifiers, and you almost have a hybrid where the combats are done like a computer game, but the rest is played like a traditional TRPG. It's even more feasible when you integrate it into a forum game like ours rather than a 'live' tabletop game. I really do think there's a future for online TRPGs, but there's not really a market for it at the moment.

[Anhamgrimmar]

/snip

Yeah, its worded badly. But make the "point" part less inflammatory and elitist, and I would agree with it. An rpg on my computer that had all the strengths of p&p (true freedom of what I can do, massive array of options for character creation and background, ability to play through in what is basically an awesome kind of co-op game) but with all the strengths of a computer game (not having to look up rules all the time, having all the maths done for you, pretty pictures and sounds)? Yes fucking please.

Don't know about anything else, but this is what multiplayer Vampire The Maquerade (the first one, not the FPSRPG by troika) was. GM had a level editor, script editor, character editor etc... And almost no one i know played it multiplayer.

I don't know, but i've heard Neverwinter nights has a similar thing. If it does, i don't recall seeing 5punkers playing NWM on a night, so AFAIK what you want has been done, and not many poeple tried it.

Also, pantsu, you may want to have a look at the VASSAL engine. sounds similar to what you posit, but aimed more at the "playing WH40K over internet without buying models" crowd. Possibly someone who knows how to piss about with java can set up a Shadowrun/SLA/CP2020 rule set, grab some art assets and away you go!

http://www.rpgvirtualtabletop.com/vts/gametable.html looks worth a squirt as well

[Dog Pants]

I've heard NWN did that quite well, and I'd be happy to do a cross game experiment in it. It's pretty old though and I missed it the first time round.

I've seen virtual tabletops before, and even tried using one for Paranoia, but they're not really what I had in mind. They're designed for live games and really only substitute miniatures for pictures, with chat functions and dice rollers thrown in. I've never seen one that did what I needed it to do. I'll have a look at this one though.

[FatherJack]

I've explained my feeling on the differences in the past, which boil down to that I'm mostly only interested in playing computer games. I like reading the source material for tabletop games as a way of understanding game design in general.

Neverwinter Nights online play was limited to four players I think, and my brief experience with randoms was a dull one. It suffered from that "everyone knows what they are doing, except me" thing that WoW sometimes does and even more annoyingly the other players basically let you get surrounded by monsters while they ninja'd all the chests.

What it also had though is basically a Dungeon Master's toolkit - I never had anyone to play it with, but it certainly looked interesting - the DM didn't just make a map or level for the players to go through, he was there while they were playing - spawning monsters, deciding what would be in chests, even physically manifesting as himself or NPCs.

I guess it would be easy to get carried away with what could be done in the game, and it could end up as just feeling like the singleplayer game, but used in moderation - say as just a replacement for the cardboard scenes some people use, merely a placeholder for everyone's character sheets, or only used to resolve battles.

Used sensibly it could be the tool to bridge the gap between the game types, with the DM creating events in real time instead of them being triggered by a script, and filling the walks down empty corridors with narrative either in-game or over Teamspeak.