Character skill vs. player skill and character immersion

This came up a few times in the current RPG philosophy threads, and I think it’s a core subject worthy of more in depth discussion and gamer-soul-searching. For one it's one of the things that set the current crop of action RPG's apart from what a lot of the old-school fans on the Codex prefer. Secondly it seems to be very central of what a lot of you give as their definition for a "real" RPG.

If I understood the comments right, a lot of you want as much distance from your character as possible, even to the extent of that character leaving your control at times (see the vices topic). The explanation given is that a RPG should be about the role of the character, not about the player’s skills or your real-life personality. To which I would agree, nevertheless I have a very different expectation to how I want to play a RPG and therefore to how I want the "role" to be implemented.

Let me try to define the difference as I see it, and I expect you will comment on that: It seems to me that the old school seems to see their role as players as a director or decision maker. You are basically asking, "What would this guy do in this situation"? My own approach is just slightly different - "So I am this guy with these traits in this fantasy world - how am I going to solve the situation". Basically it's ME acting out the role, like an actor on the stage, and while as an actor I have to stay "in character" I also expect the freedom to fill the role with my own interpretation of it, bring my own physicality and my own ideas into how I fill the role.

Therefore I have always seen role-playing a little different as many here, "me acting out a role" with a much more active stance on my part. In other words, many of you seem to expect the game to define the character for you: every interaction based on the stats that define the character: dialogue options based on skills, trap detecting based on skills, fear and vices in the extreme case taking control of your character. Me on the other hand, I expect the game merely to give me the options to act out my role and the feedback that makes it feel right.

I guess my approach may be less suited to "extreme" roles that are very different from myself, but is it less role-playing? Is it less role-playing if the game does not force you to act in a certain way, but merely gives you the option. In one case you define your character a priori and force it to play out the assigned role. The fun is in navigating the game in the best way possible for this specific character. In the other case the role is something that develops as you play it, something organically developing out of your choices in the game. Both are valid role-playing IMHO - I merely want control at a higher level on how I play the role. So why should games with a strong player skill element be worse RPG's?

Based on my approach I hope you can understand why I see player skill elements not as something opposed to role-playing. It's me playing the role, the game system should serve as a filter to translate my own skill to what my character can do, not replace it. To use the lame stage actor analogy again: I may play a guy with a limp that's 30 years older than me, but it's still my body up there, me moving.

The advantage as I see it is in immersion, I want to be there and live through these adventures, that was my motivation from way back in the P&P days. I want to enter Middle Earth, or Tamriel, or the wastelands, and live out an imaginary life there, not move a game figure around a game world.

Interestingly that reflects back to different schools in P&P to: we never used any figurines etc. to play, relying purely on description and imagination (plus the rule system of course)- but I know that other P&P player use these extensively, making a P&P session much more like a board game. That’s the effect extreme dependence on character skills has for me: it makes the game more like a board game, a strategy game, instead of the half game / half simulation experience I am after. But I do maintain that both ways can be played as valid and deep RPG experiences.


To cut the most obvious retorts short: I am not talking about MW or Oblivion being games that support my way of playing very well. While they allow the freedom, they fall short in dialogue options, and in the feedback department as well.

Good post, Ghan.

GhanBuriGhan said:

You are basically asking, "What would this guy do in this situation"? My own approach is just slightly different - "So I am this guy with these traits in this fantasy world - how am I going to solve the situation". Basically it's ME acting out the role, like an actor on the stage, and while as an actor I have to stay "in character" I also expect the freedom to fill the role with my own interpretation of it, bring my own physicality and my own ideas into how I fill the role.

Click to expand...

I see little difference between these two concepts. It doesn't really matter whether the character is you or some guy, what matters is how the "purity" of the role is maintained. It should be a role, a role different from any other role. That's where various mechanics kick in, allowing you to play very distinctive characters without playing the same character but with different skills all the time.

If you just want to play yourself, that's a different story, that has less to do with role-playing and more with acting out your fantasies.

In other words, many of you seem to expect the game to define the character for you: every interaction based on the stats that define the character: dialogue options based on skills, trap detecting based on skills, fear and vices in the extreme case taking control of your character. Me on the other hand, I expect the game merely to give me the options to act out my role and the feedback that makes it feel right.

Click to expand...

That's where we disagree very strongly. You are wrong here. We don't expect the game to define characters for us - that's your biggest mistake. We expect to have tools that would allow us to define our characters with precision, where wearing a "Wizzard Lord" hat is unnecessary, and game mechanics that would react to our characters' traits.

I guess my approach may be less suited to "extreme" roles that are very different from myself, but is it less role-playing?

Click to expand...

Yes. It's role-playing, not Ghan-in-a-fantasy-world-playing. You should be able to play any character, not just yourself. I can see why you are arguing against mechanics that would give more role-playing options, but limit Ghan-playing options.

Is it less role-playing if the game does not force you to act in a certain way, but merely gives you the option.

Click to expand...

Different circumstances call for different scenarios. It's like asking why does the game forces me to reload by killing my character, instead of just beating me up and giving me an option to continue. I prefer non-lethal combat for variety of reasons, but you can't avoid lethal combat in some cases. Same with vices and control.

I think the problem is not much player skills vs character skills...
Any game, including RPG, tests some player skills. A game is made to challenge you, and you have to overcome this challenge using your own abilities: your players skills.

But there are no universal "player skills". Those depends on the game you play, because each game sets different challenges, and therefore require different skills to be "won".

There are a lot of players skills tested in a RPG: deductiveness, imagination, sociability... Of course it often happens that those skills override the characters ones. How many time did some smart players had good ideas their stupid character should not probably had?

To test those role players skills the GM set complexe intrigues to be solved, dangerous tactical situations, tortuous NPC... Those are the area where role player skills are usually tested.

What happens in CRPGs?
The oral communication, which is so complexe, natural and flexible is replaced by a computer interface. A keyboard, a mouse, a joystick... And here is the problem.

Classically, a lot of computer and console games challenge is to master this interface. Master it to the point where you have a natural and totally intuitive control over what happens on screen. That is what most computer gamers refere as "player skill".

The RPG gamer, on the other hand, often consider it to be a simple replacement of the language as a mean of dialog with the virtual GM. In a PnP RPG, the challenge is not to talk, but what to say! What matter are the idea you express, and how the GM imagine and describe their effects.

The request for "player skills" (following the computer games meaning), is perceived as an unnecessary challenge to most roleplayers.

Worst, it often happens not to be a simple expansion of the game challenge, but a drift toward another one.

To take the example of Oblivion and the way I see it goes, I would say that they have removed any classical RPG challenge, by taking the player by the hand and always showing him what is coming next (in so many PnP RPG games, I remember passing hours of brain storming trying to figure out what to do next!) , while reintroducing more challenge by developing a more action oriented gameplay ( visceral combat, stealth system...).

This system includes the characters skills. Those have an actual effect on what happens and the possibilities of actions. But the system introduce an interface handling challenge, that is a physical player skill test, as an intermediate between the players ideas, and the actions of the characters.

And here, it also pose some problems, as it can either reduce the chance of success of good players ideas, because he may not master the interface, as it can make some unskilled players (in the RPG sense of skill) successfull in their actions, sometime even if their character may have not succeeded.

To sumarize this: I want my imagination and intelligence to be tested in a RPG, not the way I can handle my mouse and keyboard.

In one of the treads there is a discussion that belongs to this tread. I am talking about player vs. character skill in puzzle solving. As has been mentioned already, a CRPG should present mental challenges in order to be fun, which I completely agree with. When only character skills are used in puzzle solving it removes mental challenge and makes the game less entertaining. Character skills may come into effect by making the puzzle easier by providing hints or solving parts of the puzzle automatically. This might work in something like puzzle lock but in other cases(e.g. T3h Murder Mystery!!!) it would be harder to implement. And the problem remains: more automatic puzzle solving -> less fun. I wanted to bring that discussion here as it deserves to be considered in more detail.

Let me try to define the difference as I see it, and I expect you will comment on that: It seems to me that the old school seems to see their role as players as a director or decision maker. You are basically asking, "What would this guy do in this situation"? My own approach is just slightly different - "So I am this guy with these traits in this fantasy world - how am I going to solve the situation". Basically it's ME acting out the role, like an actor on the stage, and while as an actor I have to stay "in character" I also expect the freedom to fill the role with my own interpretation of it, bring my own physicality and my own ideas into how I fill the role.

Click to expand...

Well you've got me (personally) all wrong on this count. I'm very much enamoured with the idea that my character is an alter ego, and anything done to distance that comes up as a point for the negative. But, I also want to be able to play a wide range of roles, as opposed to "me in a fantasy world." I'm more attuned to "a vastly different representation of me in a fantasy world."

For instance, I have an affinity for religious characters and fundamentalist ideals, a couple of things I'm not particularly fond of in reality. It's not uncommon for me to play a very peaceable character until somebody rubs my fur the wrong way, or shows their colours as somebody opposing my idealogy. I still see it as "me", but not the same me as I am in reality.

Therefore I have always seen role-playing a little different as many here, "me acting out a role" with a much more active stance on my part. In other words, many of you seem to expect the game to define the character for you: every interaction based on the stats that define the character: dialogue options based on skills, trap detecting based on skills, fear and vices in the extreme case taking control of your character. Me on the other hand, I expect the game merely to give me the options to act out my role and the feedback that makes it feel right.

Click to expand...

I don't expect anyone to define my character but me, what I do expect is a causal reaction to my definition. If I champion such ideas as fear overriding my character, it's because that's a reaction to something I've deliberately defined, at least to some extent.

In this case, the game is not imposing a character upon me, it's adjudicating according to what I myself have chosen to be. And it's a rule, same as any other in the game. If you "release" the player from the obligations of rules, and leave the role play up to his own sense of discipline, then you're LARPing. It's just not my thing.

I guess my approach may be less suited to "extreme" roles that are very different from myself, but is it less role-playing? Is it less role-playing if the game does not force you to act in a certain way, but merely gives you the option. In one case you define your character a priori and force it to play out the assigned role.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see the difference in defining my character as a coward or defining him as a poor swordsman. Both are "forcing you to act in a certain way" be it running from combat, or swinging aimlessly.

In order for a game to effectively account for the personality I choose, it needs to be able to track my personality in mathematical terms and rules. If RPGs adopt this attitude and continue to expand the complexity of the terms and rules it uses to react to personalities, then in theory, you eventually come up with "Better Than Life." If you take the approach of the character role being explicitly separated from the games systems, then I fail to see how the role-playing part of RPG ever improves. It means that RPGs will cease to become anything unique, they'll just end up blurring into the multi-genre catch-all that all other games are slowly becoming.

Based on my approach I hope you can understand why I see player skill elements not as something opposed to role-playing. It's me playing the role, the game system should serve as a filter to translate my own skill to what my character can do, not replace it. To use the lame stage actor analogy again: I may play a guy with a limp that's 30 years older than me, but it's still my body up there, me moving.

Click to expand...

And we're the method actors that would have the makeup department club our knees after chalking our hair, because that makes it more convincing. (Or it makes us worse actors )

[edit] This post is probably a bit redundant, because it doesn't quite frame the argument against your own, but rather rambles and meanders with more focus on the imagination reliance that we see in Elder Scrolls games.

My sentiments exactly.

Drain said:

In one of the treads there is a discussion that belongs to this tread. I am talking about player vs. character skill in puzzle solving. As has been mentioned already, a CRPG should present mental challenges in order to be fun, which I completely agree with. When only character skills are used in puzzle solving it removes mental challenge and makes the game less entertaining. Character skills may come into effect by making the puzzle easier by providing hints or solving parts of the puzzle automatically. This might work in something like puzzle lock but in other cases(e.g. T3h Murder Mystery!!!) it would be harder to implement. And the problem remains: more automatic puzzle solving -> less fun. I wanted to bring that discussion here as it deserves to be considered in more detail.

Click to expand...

This makes a good case for why you enjoy games that require the player to solve puzzles, but it doesn't make any case for why requiring the player to solve a puzzle makes the game an RPG. I could do a find and replace on your paragraph and substitute l33t FPS headshot skills for puzzles and it would have equal merit.

The ideal, perfect world, would completely abstract player skill from character skill. You should be able to play any character you want, not any character you're smart enough, strong enough, dextrous enough, or handsome enough to play. A lot of us bitch about "rpgs" that require good reflexes for combat, and if the game came with a camera and took pictures of us and based social reactions on that we'd never get anywhere. Why is it more valid to require the player to be smart if they want to play a smart character.

It should be a pointless debate, because the compromise is simple. Use real puzzles in the game, and allow character skills to resolve the puzzle without giving the solution to the player. So I can either figure the puzzle out myself. and put the answer in, or click the "Oh, that's easy..." if my character is smart enough. The questions is if my character is really dumb, should I not even have the option of answering if I as the player knows it.

Alright, this is interesting. If Adventure Games have puzzles (player skill) and Action Games have shooting and jumping (player skill) and, RPG's look to abstract player skill from character skill, what exactly are you doing in an RPG? Where's the "play".

Mind you I'm not looking for the obvious answer, but Drain's sentiment is, (and it certainly sounds like he was referrencing one of my early threads) that the game should allow the character to offer "aid" if you will, based on their skills, for the player to then use to overcome obstacles or solve "puzzles"(for lack of a better word). Such that for example, a high level of perception will offering more information about whatever it is you're looking at, be it a room, a character or an item. The player can then do as he will with that info, but at least he's doing 'something'.

Alternatively, we talk about TB vs. RT, and then in one of my earlier threads talking about TB combat complexity, a lot of us concluded that over complex TB is actually not a great thing, as it requires too much "player skill". He's required to bring or develop a reasonable level of strategy to play a game with a robust set of tactical options. JRPG's do well simply because they rarely include movement with just attack/item usage/spell cast as options, and at the most offer movement, but not tactical, just placement. But then what of this? Games like KotoR offer the exciment of a Star Wars battle, but it isn't terribly heavy. You dont need to worry about moving the characters because THEIR skill determines a dodge or parry. You dont need to really take your time moving and attacking with each character separately as basically, by removing the need to move, you can let the characters sit there beating on eachother, and when conditions warrant it, toss in a medkit or force power. Poo-poo'ing a combat system because it removes "player skill" is kind of ironic in this case. Combat if anything should be automatic if to truly utilize "character skill" only. The character would decide when to move, when to attack and when to use a health kit.

So term "player skill vs. character skill" might be a bit of a misnomer (if a sentence can be a misnomer, but work with it if you can ). Games are ABOUT skill of some sort, or its not really a game.

I think the important distinction here is whether the character and players skills involved actually represent the same thing in the in-game world.

For instance, if you were to add character skills to an FPS game (I'm sorry, I still haven't played Deus Ex ) but otherwise kept it the same, the player skill and character skill of "firing a gun" would be tied closely together, representing the act of "firing a gun" in the simplified-reality of the in-game world.

On the other hand, take Fallout for instance: There's absolutely no player skill in "firing a gun", it's 100% character skill. While there's still player skill involved in combat, the player-to-game-world "interface" is different.

This kind of distinction might not be relevant to most games, but I think it's worth consideration for CRPGs.

interesting points.

I imagine that an RPG in it's purest form, would be pretty unsatisfying. How do you give an idiot the sense of being intelligent? How do you give someone with no tactical sense the satisfaction of being a brilliant tactician. Someone that never has lifted a sword the thrill of a duel between masters?

Luckily, while in theory anyone should be able to roleplay anything, the fact of the matter is that it's mostly braniac nerds that roleplay - jocks are too busy having sex to wonder what it would be like to be able to figure out logic puzzles. So we have tons of rules for combat, spells, etc...and the investigation, puzzle solving, character building and exploration (likely interests of rp'ers) are the players domain. So like many things in the real world, the implementation is not exactly the same as the concept.

Computer and console RPGs used to be pretty much the same, but focusing on different aspects of the PNP experience. Then developers figured out that there were many people that found rpgs boring, but could handle action-rpg hybrids. And now a TB, text-heavy, freeform rpg is even more rare than a movie without a love interest.

Like Vault Dweller, Im not sure the difference between a player who is a "decision maker" for his character and one who "is" his character is as significant as you make it out to be. Both use their characters as the means through which they interact with the gameworld. Maybe Im missing something.

I merely want control at a higher level on how I play the role

Click to expand...

Id guess that is because you prefer improvisation over acting in this regard. For group improvisation to be successful from an artistic standpoint you need a high degree of understanding and feedback between actors. It is much the same in a CRPG - the gameworld must respond not only to what a character does (feedback) but also what a character is (understanding). Of course difficulties arise when we try to find artistic value in a players improvisation within a gameworld. Yet without artistic value, improvisation sinks to the level of a sort of mindless searching without motive or any sense of closure. For now, the best CRPGs can offer is a rich and detailed amount of understanding or feedback. Or to use the ragged stage actor analogy - give us imaginative actors to improvise with because we know there will be no audience aside from ourselves. (note: all of this refers to single player CRPGs, multiplayer benefits from an 'audience' of a sort)

The above would be my answer to EvoGs question - what exactly are you doing in an RPG? Where's the "play"

Or to say a little more on the matter, CRPGs are two very seperate things at once. Firstly, a game of sorts like chess or poker and secondly a role-playing experience. These two elements constantly struggle as their purposes are quite different. The purpose of a game is to win ! The purpose of roleplay is to... be entertained by either the process of interacting with the gameworld or the artistic qualities of the players improvisation. Im not thinking this is THE answer, just one point of view on the matter [/quote]

GhanBuriGhan said:

It seems to me that the old school seems to see their role as players as a director or decision maker. You are basically asking, "What would this guy do in this situation"? My own approach is just slightly different - "So I am this guy with these traits in this fantasy world - how am I going to solve the situation". Basically it's ME acting out the role, like an actor on the stage, and while as an actor I have to stay "in character" I also expect the freedom to fill the role with my own interpretation of it, bring my own physicality and my own ideas into how I fill the role.

Click to expand...

Although at first glance the difference appears to be subtle, in the second instance there is a greater likelihood that you would attempt an action or make a decision that the character would not if (s)he was a real person in a real world. A large part of your decision-making process is based upon your own past experiences, and the same applies to your character. It is also highly likely that you have skills and knowledge that the character does not (and vice versa).

As an extreme example, the character should not be able to invent the steam-powered locomotive four centuries early merely because the player has the knowledge and skill to create one.

Therefore I have always seen role-playing a little different as many here, "me acting out a role" with a much more active stance on my part. In other words, many of you seem to expect the game to define the character for you: every interaction based on the stats that define the character: dialogue options based on skills, trap detecting based on skills, fear and vices in the extreme case taking control of your character. Me on the other hand, I expect the game merely to give me the options to act out my role and the feedback that makes it feel right.

Click to expand...

Even in a PnP RPG with a human GM the choices available to a particular character are limited by their skills, attributes, experiences etc.

Apart from anything else, this helps improve character differentiation.

I guess my approach may be less suited to "extreme" roles that are very different from myself, but is it less role-playing? Is it less role-playing if the game does not force you to act in a certain way, but merely gives you the option. In one case you define your character a priori and force it to play out the assigned role. The fun is in navigating the game in the best way possible for this specific character. In the other case the role is something that develops as you play it, something organically developing out of your choices in the game. Both are valid role-playing IMHO - I merely want control at a higher level on how I play the role. So why should games with a strong player skill element be worse RPG's?

Click to expand...

Ironically, it is skills-based games such as Daggerfall which most easily support the second style of playing you mention, particularly if you create a custom character. In such games the skills that you use most often improve quicker than those you seldom use, so your character's abilities evolve according to your playing style.

Games with a strong player skill element are worse than those with a strong character skill element because the character should improve at a faster rate than the player. The skills of the player and those of the character will rarely be in sync, if for no other reason than the fact that game time and real time pass at different speeds.

Based on my approach I hope you can understand why I see player skill elements not as something opposed to role-playing. It's me playing the role, the game system should serve as a filter to translate my own skill to what my character can do, not replace it. To use the lame stage actor analogy again: I may play a guy with a limp that's 30 years older than me, but it's still my body up there, me moving.

Click to expand...

What if your analogy were reversed? Suppose an actor in a radio play had a limp and was 30 years older than the character. Should that prevent him/her playing the role of a young, acrobatic thief?

Even indirect mapping of player skills onto the character would make it extremely difficult for someone with arthritis to play the role of a dextrous character.

The advantage as I see it is in immersion, I want to be there and live through these adventures, that was my motivation from way back in the P&P days. I want to enter Middle Earth, or Tamriel, or the wastelands, and live out an imaginary life there, not move a game figure around a game world.

Click to expand...

Whether basing character skills upon those of the player increases the level of immersion will depend on individual circumstances. For many it would actually decrease it.

For example, I could be an Olympic standard fencing champion, but my character would still be useless with swords if I was not also skilled at using the appropriate computer input device(s) if the game based combat skills upon player hand to eye coordination.

Also, most players become more skilled as they spend more time playing the game. If they played for several hours and then restarted as a new character, that character's skills would then be higher than they should in reality.

Interestingly that reflects back to different schools in P&P to: we never used any figurines etc. to play, relying purely on description and imagination (plus the rule system of course)- but I know that other P&P player use these extensively, making a P&P session much more like a board game. That’s the effect extreme dependence on character skills has for me: it makes the game more like a board game, a strategy game, instead of the half game / half simulation experience I am after. But I do maintain that both ways can be played as valid and deep RPG experiences.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you mention playing PnP games, as I was under the impression that most GMs reward those who act "in character" and punish those that do not. They also disallow actions based upon character skill and/or attribute limits.

All computer games and simulations place limits on the choices available to the player/user in addition to those imposed due to world boundaries, so I'm not quite sure what your expectations are.

Well Shim, I removed this from my last post so I didn't end up rambling on about the over-analysis of RPG's but, I was going to add that the one problem with the "ideaology" of is an RPG and the reality is simply that we cannot express ourselves with the dimension we want to to make that kind of improvisation matter. AI will not respond how we want them to, only as scripted. The world is 99.9% unaffected by grand gestures (blowing stuff up, improving a farms ability to trade food and gain wealth, etc), so we're limited to the strict design.

What we all really want is a simulation. Out of the hundreds of discussions I've had myself and read here and at DaC...after talking to Killzig and Saint about great RPG's...after reading many manifestos and theses and disertations on game design, RPG design, non-linearity, emergence it all adds up to one tihng. As Saint said about Fallout, its making the story your own. This is a big reason why GTA is so damn immersive. Sure you're still hitting your story junctions, its what you do in between that is so liberating. In many ways its more of an RPG than many "real" RPG's, and it gets even closer to that hybridization with each iteration.

While its a bit of a hyperbole to say you're making your "own" story in Fallout or GTA (you aren't, really), the idea that you progressed 'through' the game world how you wanted to gave that impression. We all visited the same places pretty much in the same order with minor deviations. If there were to be a cohesive story that we all understood together as a community, we had to follow it linearly, so in fact we ALL had the same story. But imagine having a world where our actions procedurally created new content allowing for dramatic changes the story...a world truly wrapped around our interactions and egos, we'd have the game we truly desire.

Thing is, this is an impossibility currently with the limitations we have in AI, but, when you start to abstract what AI is, you can get close. The Sims is a perfect example. Its never important 'what' they're actually saying, but rather that they ARE saying something a certain way. You are truly creating your own stories in the sims. Problem is, its not terribly compelling. We need talented writers to create worlds that spark our imaginations but there is only so much that can be written and predicted before you expose the script for what it is.

An RPG that simulates the butterfly effect with infinite opportunity modify the game world is an incredibly desirous thing but nothing thats going to happen soon.

Sorry I realise this appears to have become dramatically OT, but some relevance could be found for the overall philosophy of "real" RPG's.



Cheers

GhanBuriGhan said:

Interestingly that reflects back to different schools in P&P to: we never used any figurines etc. to play, relying purely on description and imagination (plus the rule system of course)- but I know that other P&P player use these extensively, making a P&P session much more like a board game. That’s the effect extreme dependence on character skills has for me: it makes the game more like a board game, a strategy game, instead of the half game / half simulation experience I am after. But I do maintain that both ways can be played as valid and deep RPG experiences.

Click to expand...

If I may bring up an old thread.

The idea here was that we played in the game world more empirically, rather that being heavily reliant on stats and ignoring how it felt to actually 'roleplay'. If we forced the player to observe what was happening to his character and to the gameworld based on his interactions, perhaps they would become more intimate with the inner workings of their character and how they could affect the gameworld.

Alright, this is interesting. If Adventure Games have puzzles (player skill) and Action Games have shooting and jumping (player skill) and, RPG's look to abstract player skill from character skill, what exactly are you doing in an RPG? Where's the "play".

Click to expand...

That's exactly why I posed the "what challenges?" question in my "Philosophy" thread. If everything is controlled by character stats, the player becomes redundant unless there's some kind of challenge. For the most part, I think this challenge should be decision making and problem solving, since that ties in directly with the role-playing aspects.

So I don't think a character should inherently be a master tactician (or whatever) since that's a great way to give the player a challenge.

And to revisit the original post, I think anything where the player must strive for the best outcome should be almost entirely player controlled. Any actions that inherently dictate some degree of failure when approaching a task (such as running in fear) must be arbitrated by the DM/computer simulation. I'd prefer that not be directly wresting control from the player, but it should be a mechanism that compells the player to act accordingly.

The player (in general) can't be trusted to carry out an order contrary to "success." For instance "You've been mind controlled. The mind flayer says, attack your friend. Please." is only going to be carried out by the well disciplined. Instead, you need a threat. "For each turn you try to resist a direct hypnotic command, you take 2d6 damage (mental) and d4 permanent damage to Int. and Wis." There's choice, there's consequence and interactivity is preserved.

I am not entirely sure that there is a distinction between me - the player and me - the character or, if there is, then it is not as easily defined as might be supposed.

In its purest form a CRPG might be nothing more than a movie with a front-end where you select your character traits bolted on to it. You select your traits (personality, skills, vices, phobias, whatever) at the beginning and the game then plays - devoid of any me - the player interaction because me - the character is running the whole show.

In its most dilute form,a CRPGt is nothing more than a twitch-fest whereby every decision, movement and action is dictated by me - the player and my skill at thumping button combinations or twiddling the mouse dictates what me - the character can accomplish..

Unfortunately it seems that the future of CRPGs is more towards the latter option than the former. Deus Ex and the KotOR games are fairly good examples of this trend: action games with a few RPG elements bolted on.

Ghan made an allusion to being an actor when he plays an RPG, with the control that an actor would bring to the role. Me, I prefer to see myself more as a director than an actor. Although it's late (early), I'll try and explain what I mean without rambling too much.

I prefer to have an independant "actor" (the me - the character part) who moves through the game world under my direction. I can decide, at any time, to direct the "actor" to do what I want - but the "actor" - using the skill set that he has - is the one who does what is directed.

For example, using the phobia and vice discussion as a basis. I have decided, at the outset, that my character suffers from arachnaphobia. This decision has allowed me to increase some other stat. Character enters a tomb and is confronted by a giant, 8-legged freak.

There are those that would advocate that the phobia kicks in and that I loose control of the character while he legs it the fuck out of there. While this is an interesting concept, it leans too heavily in the direction of "CRPG as movie" where all consequences are dictated by skill-set.

Others would advocate that I should just wade in and, with a skillful press of certain buttons, kick the crap out of the spider. This, for me, is counter to the whole fundamental concept of a RPG - heading, as it does, deep into "RPG as twitch-fest" territory where there are no consequences to any decision.

Whereas I want to be able to make the decision - fight or flight - on behalf of my character. Do I run away - and the phobia adds a boost to my speed because I'm extra scared? Or do I stand and fight - badly because I'm in the process of crapping my pants while doing so? And,as a consequence of my decision, does the phobia get a little worse (because I ran like a little girl?) Or it is not so debilitating the next time my character is in a similar situation? (Because I stood up and fought)

I pretty much play the way you do Ghan.

I don't usually try a lot of different kinds of "roles" though. I seem to always play a really goody-two-shoes character who is selfless -pretty much a paladan. -which is quite unlike myself in RL.

Section8 said:

And to revisit the original post, I think anything where the player must strive for the best outcome should be almost entirely player controlled. Any actions that inherently dictate some degree of failure when approaching a task (such as running in fear) must be arbitrated by the DM/computer simulation. I'd prefer that not be directly wresting control from the player, but it should be a mechanism that compells the player to act accordingly.

The player (in general) can't be trusted to carry out an order contrary to "success." For instance "You've been mind controlled. The mind flayer says, attack your friend. Please." is only going to be carried out by the well disciplined. Instead, you need a threat. "For each turn you try to resist a direct hypnotic command, you take 2d6 damage (mental) and d4 permanent damage to Int. and Wis." There's choice, there's consequence and interactivity is preserved.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, though we'd be careful not to call it mind-control and perhaps 'suggestion'. "Mind Control" implies a control outside of the character.

See this kind of game(the sum total of all of our threads) 'can' be made, just that it would never be made by any publisher, though intriguing as it is...

A lot of good points were brought up I can only reply to smoe of them I am afraid.

Vault Dweller said:

I see little difference between these two concepts. It doesn't really matter whether the character is you or some guy, what matters is how the "purity" of the role is maintained. It should be a role, a role different from any other role. That's where various mechanics kick in, allowing you to play very distinctive characters without playing the same character but with different skills all the time.

If you just want to play yourself, that's a different story, that has less to do with role-playing and more with acting out your fantasies.

Click to expand...

Section8 said:

Well you've got me (personally) all wrong on this count. I'm very much enamoured with the idea that my character is an alter ego, and anything done to distance that comes up as a point for the negative. But, I also want to be able to play a wide range of roles, as opposed to "me in a fantasy world." I'm more attuned to "a vastly different representation of me in a fantasy world."

For instance, I have an affinity for religious characters and fundamentalist ideals, a couple of things I'm not particularly fond of in reality. It's not uncommon for me to play a very peaceable character until somebody rubs my fur the wrong way, or shows their colours as somebody opposing my idealogy. I still see it as "me", but not the same me as I am in reality.

Click to expand...

Wysardry said:

Although at first glance the difference appears to be subtle, in the second instance there is a greater likelihood that you would attempt an action or make a decision that the character would not if (s)he was a real person in a real world. A large part of your decision-making process is based upon your own past experiences, and the same applies to your character. It is also highly likely that you have skills and knowledge that the character does not (and vice versa).

Click to expand...

The difference may be subtle, but I think it matters. I am pretty much taking the same approach as Section8, I am not just playing myself, but in a way role playing is an opportunity to try out different roles that are not me in reality. Just like you I enjoy religious characters, sometimes opportunistic scoundrels etc. I guess this is of course one thing that draws all of us to RPGing. It's just that I am more interested in being that person (while playing) than just playing "with" a charcter. Maybe I am wrong, but it seemed to me that that would be the different frame of mind that might be associated with favoring very character based systems. More an interest in somebody else than in being somebody else - or is that wrong?
Wysardry is probably right that it is easier to break out of your role in a game where the rules don't alway force you. On the other hand I would say that at least in principle you also have more opportunity to roleplay of your own initiative - how manny canned reaction can a game contain, how many more variations can you imagine?

Vault Dweller said:

That's where we disagree very strongly. You are wrong here. We don't expect the game to define characters for us - that's your biggest mistake. We expect to have tools that would allow us to define our characters with precision, where wearing a "Wizzard Lord" hat is unnecessary, and game mechanics that would react to our characters' traits.

Click to expand...

Section8 said:

I don't expect anyone to define my character but me, what I do expect is a causal reaction to my definition. If I champion such ideas as fear overriding my character, it's because that's a reaction to something I've deliberately defined, at least to some extent.

In this case, the game is not imposing a character upon me, it's adjudicating according to what I myself have chosen to be. And it's a rule, same as any other in the game. If you "release" the player from the obligations of rules, and leave the role play up to his own sense of discipline, then you're LARPing. It's just not my thing.

Click to expand...

When I said define, I did not mean a pre-made character, more that you want that the rules of the game control that the character stays within the role - basically in the extreme case of such a system, playing "out of role" would be impossible. In itself thats fine with me, but the danger is usually, that it gets too restricting, or that the game becomes an act of merely selecting the right options for your chosen character instead of bringing your own creativity into it. One of my pet peeves in that respect is the classid D&D class restrictions. Yes, a mage should not usually run around in plate armor. But for heavens sake, if he is stuck in a dungeon with a dragon and no mana, why shouldn't he try to climb into one of the rusty suits and see if he can clank past the dragon and get enough protection from the heat. Most likely he can hardly move and ends up as baked potato, but its such a fun scene! So I am much more for systems of penalties and advantages that result in rewards for good roleplaying instead of strict rules. It's just difficult to foresee what would be good roleplaying in each and every situation and incorporate that in a "strict" character skill only rule system. I much prefer a slightly lax system that leaves some of the decision what's good roleplaying to me - after all I am the only one playing, and what do I care if some munchkin ruins his fun by playing out of character all the time?
But just like you I do want feedback - but I want to be able to bend the rules, just a little. Characters, humans, don't react the same way in every situation - that flexibility should be reflected in a RPG system.

scyandre said:

I think the problem is not much player skills vs character skills...
Any game, including RPG, tests some player skills. A game is made to challenge you, and you have to overcome this challenge using your own abilities: your players skills.

But there are no universal "player skills". Those depends on the game you play, because each game sets different challenges, and therefore require different skills to be "won".

There are a lot of players skills tested in a RPG: deductiveness, imagination, sociability... Of course it often happens that those skills override the characters ones. How many time did some smart players had good ideas their stupid character should not probably had?

To test those role players skills the GM set complexe intrigues to be solved, dangerous tactical situations, tortuous NPC... Those are the area where role player skills are usually tested.

Click to expand...

That is true. It may be hyperbole, but it is obvious that in the utmost extreme a purely character skill based system would be a boring mess with minimal player input. I am however well aware, that nobody here wants that, so obviously there are just different preferences as you point out as the what the player input should be. You are also right about the danger of replacing the classical challenges of RPG's with action instead of exapnding the concept. But it does not have to be that way - e.g. Arx Fatalis, and Gothic series may not be the most shining examples, but they presented some decent classical RPG challenges nonetheless.
I agree that handling my keyboard should not be what an RPG is mainly about, on the other hand that's not really what any action RPG I have ever played has done (In fact the only one where I can remember this being a major challenge was Ultima VIII with those god damn jumping puzzles!).Maybe that's just me as I am at least a decent FPS player as well, but from my perspective it does not add an additional challenge, just a closer and more realistic feel to what is happening. I mean, how much difference did your mouse and keyboard skills really make in Gothic, MW, or Arx? To me it felt like less than 10%. Skills, preparation, and even minor strategic choices (ehich weapon / spell for which enemy) played a much larger role.

Shim said:

Id guess that is because you prefer improvisation over acting in this regard. For group improvisation to be successful from an artistic standpoint you need a high degree of understanding and feedback between actors. It is much the same in a CRPG - the gameworld must respond not only to what a character does (feedback) but also what a character is (understanding). Of course difficulties arise when we try to find artistic value in a players improvisation within a gameworld. Yet without artistic value, improvisation sinks to the level of a sort of mindless searching without motive or any sense of closure. For now, the best CRPGs can offer is a rich and detailed amount of understanding or feedback. Or to use the ragged stage actor analogy - give us imaginative actors to improvise with because we know there will be no audience aside from ourselves. (note: all of this refers to single player CRPGs, multiplayer benefits from an 'audience' of a sort)

The above would be my answer to EvoGs question - what exactly are you doing in an RPG? Where's the "play"

Or to say a little more on the matter, CRPGs are two very seperate things at once. Firstly, a game of sorts like chess or poker and secondly a role-playing experience. These two elements constantly struggle as their purposes are quite different. The purpose of a game is to win ! The purpose of roleplay is to... be entertained by either the process of interacting with the gameworld or the artistic qualities of the players improvisation. Im not thinking this is THE answer, just one point of view on the matter

Click to expand...

Not a bad analysis. I guess I have always tried to minimize the chess part in RPG's being more interested in the simulation and interaction.

Section8 said:

And to revisit the original post, I think anything where the player must strive for the best outcome should be almost entirely player controlled. Any actions that inherently dictate some degree of failure when approaching a task (such as running in fear) must be arbitrated by the DM/computer simulation. I'd prefer that not be directly wresting control from the player, but it should be a mechanism that compells the player to act accordingly.

Click to expand...

I had some trouble understanding this paragraph at first, but it makes a very important destinction. I agree with this. VD, am I correct in assuming that you would want character skill to go beyond this, e.g. in an intelligent character solving riddles that the player can't? Can you explain why, and what exactly the challenge is you want to encounter in an RPG?

Unfortunately it seems that the future of CRPGs is more towards the latter option than the former. Deus Ex and the KotOR games are fairly good examples of this trend: action games with a few RPG elements bolted on.

Click to expand...

As a quick aside, I don't see KOTOR as an action game, nor do I see Baldur's Gate and it's ilk as such. The ability to pause at any time effectively eliminates the reflex challenges associated with action games (the fun bits!) but the games haven't compensated with any other challenge (like problem solving, etc.)

Anyway, it's not a "bash Bioware" thread, so I'll leave it at that.

And a quick rephrase:

And to revisit the original post, I think anything where the effect is measured as a degree of success should be almost entirely decided by the player. Any actions where the effect is measured as a degree of failure (such as running in fear) must be arbitrated by the DM/computer simulation. I'd prefer that not be directly wresting control from the player, but it should be a mechanism that compells the player to act accordingly.

Click to expand...

Better. On re-reading, the point wasn't immediately clear, even if the gist of what I was suggesting came across.

When I said define, I did not mean a pre-made character, more that you want that the rules of the game control that the character stays within the role - basically in the extreme case of such a system, playing "out of role" would be impossible. In itself thats fine with me, but the danger is usually, that it gets too restricting

Click to expand...

That's a very real danger, and I think that's why Morrowind is such a draw for many people. It doesn't actually respond to your choices, but in doing so, it doesn't limit the choices on account of what the developers can effectively script consequences for.

My thoughts on that design principle is that it stagnates the development of RPGs as a style of game independent from whatever other genres they blur into. It may be a viable solution here and now to overcoming the limits of how many consequences can be reasonably scripted, but it has no room for improvement.

I'd rather see (and I'm glad to see many others championing the idea in the "philosophy" thread) procedural content and emergent consequences further developed. The more effort and research goes into it, the more we get out of it. Nothing should be dismissable as "procedurally generated garbage," resources should be dedicated to figuring out what went "wrong" and how to improve upon it, like any other feature that works in theory.

GhanBuriGhan said:

VD, am I correct in assuming that you would want character skill to go beyond this, e.g. in an intelligent character solving riddles that the player can't? Can you explain why...

Click to expand...

Isn't that self-explanatory? That's what role-playing is all about. Your character may and should know things that you don't: advanced science in Fallout, arcane studies in fantasy games, dead languages, puzzles based on something your - player's - eye can't see. Similarly an option to create and play a dumb or incredibly smart character should be there, with all the mechanics that would allow your character to be smarter then you are.

... and what exactly the challenge is you want to encounter in an RPG?

Click to expand...

I, the player? The challenge of creating, developing, and guiding a character through quests, story, and gameworld. The player is the one who chooses skills and abilities, decides where the character would go and how he/she/it would handle objectives. Finding the right way, skillfully using your character's skills & abilities, surviving & progressing as the character(s) of your choice is the challenge.

I once made an all rogue party (5 characters, no hired help) in ToEE. Multiclassing was allowed, but rogue was the dominant class. Playing with that party and using rogues' strengths, natural advantages, and favorable spells was interesting & challenging.

The best challenge or at least the one I like the most is solving "the puzzle" of a quest/situation. For example, you are asked to do something. Assuming it's not something retarded, like go to A and bring me item X, but an actual problem that could be solved in several ways, each way introducing different effects & consequences, trying to figure it out and considering all options and their effects is what I'm talking about.

For example, in AoD there is a quest where an NPC A, serving a Noble House, asks you to do something for that house. There are many ways you can do that, depending on your character. One of them is asking Faction B for help (to do that for you, basically). They ask you to get rid of NPC A in return (before they do anything). Again, you can do that in a number of ways, but most people who either saw dialogues or played the early build were confused by the fact that in order to solve the quest you must get rid of the NPC who gave you that quest. Some of them thought they broke the quest by doing something out of sequence. My analogy was if your boss was fired, it doesn't mean that your job is now useless. You wait for a new boss or discuss your duties with the next-in-line manager. Anyway, maybe that quest is too complex, although there are much simplier solutions to it, but that's an example of a challenge I'd like to see in RPGs.

Well, the only thing I can contribute to this is that I feel that a charactors limitations go as much towards defining the role playing experience (and the charactor) as his strengths do. Therefore a system that allows more forms of limitations allows for more diversity of charactor. Anything that is handled by the players skill, is going to be one way that any charactor the player uses is going to be alike.

One of the nice things about games with skills, is that I can create different charactors with different strengths and weakness and send them through the same world and the experience is different.

Personally, I think the more skills a game has the better. Not only that but I think way too much attention goes into "balancing" skills, since I think it would be better if some skills were actually more useful or powerful than others. This would let you create charactors with "handicaps" or very unusual charactors to take through the gaming world.

I view the diminishment and balancing of skills with sadness, and as another sign of developers shooting for the lowest common denominator to get the widest appeal.

VD, am I correct in assuming that you would want character skill to go beyond this, e.g. in an intelligent character solving riddles that the player can't? Can you explain why...

Click to expand...

This is another thing that doesn't have to be done explicitly. The character's internal monologue can help the player along in the classic hint book style. ie Small Hint then Big Hint then Solution. So if you as the player want to solve the puzzle yourself, because that's part of the fun, you can do that. If you want your smart character to be portrayed as such, the option is there.

Vault Dweller said:

I, the player? The challenge of creating, developing, and guiding a character through quests, story, and gameworld. The player is the one who chooses skills and abilities, decides where the character would go and how he/she/it would handle objectives. Finding the right way, skillfully using your character's skills & abilities, surviving & progressing as the character(s) of your choice is the challenge.

Click to expand...

See this is very interesting considering I just read debate on adventure games, where someone was defending RESTRICTED, singular solutions to puzzles versus open-ended, opting for the challenge of figuring out what the specific puzzle solution was, rather than having five different ways to do something, freeing up the player from figuring anything out. Effectively he's given five distinct opportunities to 'get it', assuming he doesn't see the first couple solutions, whereas the one solution would force him to figure it out. Now as I was reading it, I was of course on the side of the "open-ended" arguement, and didn't appreciate what the other side was arguing until I read your post here, VD.

Vault Dweller said:

I, the player? The challenge of creating, developing, and guiding a character through quests, story, and gameworld.

Click to expand...

Where's the challenge in creating a character? There's no right or wrong decision or else the game would be flawed.

Where's the challenge in developing a character? You're free (ideally) to develop the skills you choose, as there is no right or wrong collection of skills and abilities, or the game is flawed.

Where's the challenge in guiding the character through a quest or story(or gameworld)? Thats just picking the solution that works for your character. Locked door? Pick it. Bash it. Unlock magic. High perception, use the secret enttrance on around the side. There's no challenge here, just using the best skill you have for a "puzzle" that gives you every chance to pick the skill you want or only can use.

Vault Dweller said:

Finding the right way, skillfully using your character's skills & abilities, surviving & progressing as the character(s) of your choice is the challenge.

Click to expand...

How much skill does it take to choose the right "skill" for any given situation. Whats interesting is you're using words and terms that would denote challeng/gameplay, but in context actually don't. There's no "skillful" way to use a characters skill because there's no challenge in it, you simply choose. Surviving, short of combat, is no more difficult than saving the game before you log off.

Vault Dweller said:

I once made an all rogue party (5 characters, no hired help) in ToEE. Multiclassing was allowed, but rogue was the dominant class. Playing with that party and using rogues' strengths, natural advantages, and favorable spells was interesting & challenging.

Click to expand...

ToEE I'll argue is not a good example simply because its a tactical combat game. Combat is arguably the only place to find challenge in RPG's, though many times it comes down to making sure you have enough buffs, debuffs, healing and offensive capability.

Vault Dweller said:

The best challenge or at least the one I like the most is solving "the puzzle" of a quest/situation. For example, you are asked to do something. Assuming it's not something retarded, like go to A and bring me item X, but an actual problem that could be solved in several ways, each way introducing different effects & consequences, trying to figure it out and considering all options and their effects is what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

You're still being too general and reiterating what you wrote above. That what I'm trying to get to the heart of...where is there challenge? You can consider all the options you want, but rarely is there ever a wrong way to do anything, only what is the right way for your particular character. Sure you may get a greater reward for being a very intelligent character, but to BE that intelligent, you had to sacrifice other skills and abilities, so the reward is proportional.

Vault Dweller said:

For example, in AoD there is a quest where an NPC A, serving a Noble House, asks you to do something for that house. There are many ways you can do that, depending on your character. One of them is asking Faction B for help (to do that for you, basically). They ask you to get rid of NPC A in return (before they do anything). Again, you can do that in a number of ways, but most people who either saw dialogues or played the early build were confused by the fact that in order to solve the quest you must get rid of the NPC who gave you that quest. Some of them thought they broke the quest by doing something out of sequence. My analogy was if your boss was fired, it doesn't mean that your job is now useless. You wait for a new boss or discuss your duties with the next-in-line manager. Anyway, maybe that quest is too complex, although there are much simplier solutions to it, but that's an example of a challenge I'd like to see in RPGs.

Click to expand...

Now this, as far as I can tell sounds like a challenge. This is a puzzle (again assuming only from what you've told us), if it isn't clear that its the boss you need to eliminate. This requires "player-skill" to figure it out, and THEN "character skill" to go ahead and choose how to do away with your boss. This is challenge. This is gameplay. You brought a part of yourself to the game to figure out what to do, and then utilized your character to execute the solution. Now honestly, if your "character" just up and decideds "oh, I have to kill you...BOSS", because he has high intelligence, then it is NOT a challenge, as the character solved it for you. If you're a dumb guy, and when you leave the room, a servant runs up and hints to you, "you must kill the big guy to succeed", then its not a challenge. Its only a challenge if the 'player' has to figure out what to do and what that something is is not clearly evident but can be deduced empirically.

EDIT: Okay, I reread your quest example from your game, and I realise I misunderstood. I kept my first reply above in simply because I think it shows a good example of both player AND character skill being used in gameplay.

To respond though to what I now understand, if there are multiple solutions to solving the quest for NPC A(your boss), what if you DONT go the the other Faction, so you're never asked to eliminate NPC A(your boss)? What if you simply do NPC A's quest as instructed and the elimination of your boss never comes up? In this case, its not really any different than any other quest. Its only interesting when that circular conflict comes into play. Now, if the only way you even THINK to kill your boss(NPC A) is because you were asked to do so by another faction, then there was never really a challenge to 'figure out' (see my post above) that you indeed DID have to kill him. You were simply asked to...fight ensues.


VD, keep in mind that I'm trying to be objective here, or perhaps just a devils advocate. I'm tit-for-tatting your entire post not without good reason, and certainly not to aruge just to argue, and it helps to read these discussions aloud between the group rather than just thinking about it alone, in my head. I'm in a similar position of creating gameplay and challenges, many of which require player skill, not just character. I'm leveraging that you the player will choose the kind of character you want to be, but beyond that, the character doesn't do the "tasks/challenges" for you. YOU do them, but with the characters skillset.

The discussion about intelligence in RPG's is actually arbitrary. Games can have puzzles, and as long as the the solution to the puzzle is available through clues around them and empirically(theres that word again), then most people should be able to solve it. If the game is designed for only 'truly smart' people with 'learned' knowledge', then its failing to be a game, at least for anyone that doesn't go to MIT or Harvard. All in all, having a high intelligence in games simply to have extra dialogue options is mental masterbation really. For fantasy games, high INT translates into an economy...more magic ability for wizards. More mana. Fast to memorize spells, or to be able to memorize more. Its tangible. Being able to teach someone how to irrigate their farmland is cute, but gets you what, some coins? Some XP? Pretty soon, the USE INT button removes the player from thinking about solutions to puzzles, because you can just USE INT and its solved...yay.

So as I read that discussion about linear puzzles vs. open-ended puzzles, I knew that open-ended was the way to go, but, each solution requires that there is a challenge present. The CHOOSING is not the challenge...big deal, anyone can choose what to do...its the ACTING on your choice that is the challenge/gameplay. If you're a thief, its not enough to simply 'pick the lock' or 'pick the pocket'. That path should be multi-tiered to test the skill of the player and his ability to use the thief character.

Cheers