Is Planetside a RPG?

[Elvis]

Originally posted by blue
Planetside is an FPS MMOG, not an RPG.Well, that's debatable. You've got a this character. You earn XP. As you earn XP, your character's level goes up. As your level goes up, your overal stats go up and you unlock new certification points (for skills that unlock weapons, armor and vehicles) and implant points (for implants). You have quests and objectives that give you XP (capturing bases in various ways, getting more XP for highly-contested bases) as well as XP directly from kills.

If Q3A or Unreal Tournament had allowed for 5000 people to all be fragging each other on one shard all at once, that would've constituted an FPS MMOG. Why? Because all that matters is twitch skill and killcount. You always start out in a level playing field in terms of what you can pick up and what you can do.

The goal is not only to level up, but to contribute points to your Outfit and Kingdom and capture entire continents away from rival Empires.

PS's strong point was that it was a different approach to an MMORPG. Its weak point was that it was the most redundant MMORPG out there. The fact that you could have 5000 people on a shard during peak hours and the shard wouldn't lag (partly because of continent locks, let's not kid ourselves. load balancing by locking people out of an area, but done in a believable way) any more than if you had 1000 on that shard. The variations on weapons, armor and vehicles, but trying to make everythihng "different but the same" was cool. A game that says, from the beginning, this is a PvP/PK-centric was also new.

It's an FPSMMORPG as opposed to a TPFMMORPG (Third Person Fantasy Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game).

What made the "I'm still here even though I'm linkdead" status awesome in Planetside was that the client (at least when I played) crashed more than plates in a china-shop full of angry bulls. You needed to keep your squad together or you got picked off very easily. Imagine trying to fight some boss in a private realm and one of your group goes linkdead. You'd really want to be able to have them get right back into the fray without worrying about getting a reinvite. What if someone gets killed while you're trying to add that person back into the group... or they'd bumped out of the group and don't get their quest advanced because they dropped at just the wrong moment. Do those private realms have respawn? I'd hope not, because it would ruin the immersion factor of the quests.

If someone's having a bad day or murphy's law kicks in at just the wrong moment for someone in your group, at least you could walk away happy if they managed to stay "connected" when, at the last moment, they crash and you kill the bad guy.

[BigJonno]

Well, that's debatable. You've got a this character. You earn XP. As you earn XP, your character's level goes up. As your level goes up, your overal stats go up and you unlock new certification points (for skills that unlock weapons, armor and vehicles) and implant points (for implants). You have quests and objectives that give you XP (capturing bases in various ways, getting more XP for highly-contested bases) as well as XP directly from kills.

Stats and levels and XP do not an RPG make. There are these two little words "role playing" that are kinda important. In several months of playing Planetside I didn't see a single person try to create and play an alternate persona, nor did I see anything in place to encourage them to.

I accept that many people don't do this in other MMORPGs, but that is their choice. More and more MMORPGs have game systems in place to encourage roleplaying (Star Wars Galaxies, for all it's flaws, is a great example of this.)

If Planetside was closer to how it was originally described when it announced (actual cities with player housing instead of minimalist bases, non-combat activities and rewards in the cities, the ability to take your helmet off etc.) then I would say that it was still a MMORPG to some degree. All it is now is a large scale FPS with persistant characters.

[Elvis]

Originally posted by BigJonno
Stats and levels and XP do not an RPG make. There are these two little words "role playing" that are kinda important. In several months of playing Planetside I didn't see a single person try to create and play an alternate persona, nor did I see anything in place to encourage them to.;)

I've heard this debate so many times. If I had a nickel for every time... sheesh.

Sorry, but when I was playing Planetside, me and most of my fellow outfit members were roleplaying. Just because nobody really roleplays in AC2 doesn't disqualify it as an RPG.

There are certain aspects of Mythica (followers and worship ... and how they relate to crafting?) that break away from the "traditional fantasy CRPG"

When my Outfit members loggedinto Planetside, we were Bellum Aeternus of the Vanu Sovereignty and we despised the Terran Republic for their backstabbing and stupidity. We had initiation ceremonies where as many of us who were able met up in the Vanu Sanctuary and welcomed our members to new levels of advancement. We had training exercises, combat tactics and philosophies of combat that shaped our gameplay experience. We strove to create an outfit with diversity and strength, despite our apparent fall from power as an Empire (i.e. we kept getting nerfed). We always referred to each other based on our callsigns.

Swords and sorcery do not an RPG make.

By your definition, The Final Fantasy series isn't really a roleplaying game either. Your character's role in the world is already determined. All you really have power over is some stat/skill modification and maybe a rename. It's a linear adventure game in a fantasy setting, not a "die hard RPG." I'm an RPG purist too, but I recognize the fact that CRPGs (computer/console roleplaying games) don't fit in with P&P (pen and paper) in terms of their definitions. CRPGs have much more flexibility. IMO, what constitutes a CRPG is: A customizeable character
You should be able to change not only your character's name but also choose some of their skills, abilities and/or stats. This defines your "role" in the game world. Goals and Objectives with Choice
You should have the ability to interract with various in-game entities (controlled by a player or the AI) to receive and resolve goals. Even if the goals can be accomplished again and again, or if one goal moves you on to another goal which ultimately ends the game, they're still goals that you can accomplish to resolution. How you solve the goals is somewhat flexible. The goals are not entirely linear in nature. You can pick up objectives later on and leave others in mid-stroke, if you choose, to seek out other objectives. Persistance
When you log out, your characters stats, skills, achievements, acquisitions and everything you've done with that character will still be there when you return.
I accept that many people don't do this in other MMORPGs, but that is their choice. More and more MMORPGs have game systems in place to encourage roleplaying (Star Wars Galaxies, for all it's flaws, is a great example of this.)You can encourage roleplaying all you want. You can even roleplay a game of StarCraft... but that doesn't mean it's a roleplaying game.
The setting isn't enough.If Planetside was closer to how it was originally described when it announced (actual cities with player housing instead of minimalist bases, non-combat activities and rewards in the cities, the ability to take your helmet off etc.) then I would say that it was still a MMORPG to some degree. All it is now is a large scale FPS with persistant characters.Planetside gave you the ability to go up in combat rank by visiting the VR training facilities and trying out every weapon, armor and vehicle type. You could actually get yourself to around BR 4 or 5 by doing this alone, if I recall correctly. This gave you the additional cert credits to train your character into a viable particular combat role (air, infantry, armor, support).

I'm playing Dragon Warrior III for the GameBoy again right now. It's an RPG. I can change my armor and weapons, increase my stats, change my name, learn and use certain spells. I can go out and hunt creatures in the wilderness or help towns with their problems (quests) as I pass by. I don't have housing. I don't have downtime activities. Most of the NPCs just spout out blabber that doesn't really help me progress in the game but does add some immersion. Is that not an RPG?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the definition of a CRPG is much more flexible than we old-school RPG purists might like... We just need to accept that and be open-minded when someone claims that a computer or console game is an RPG, be it single-player (e.g. Final Fantasy VII), multiplayer (Neverwinter Nights) or massively-multiplayer (UO, AC, AC2, EQ, DAoC, Planetside ;))

Edited to add: I think we're getting off-topic here. I doubt everyone will see completely eye-to-eye on the Planetside issue, but I hope that my points have at least opened some here up to new ideas.

[esion]

I realize this thread went way off topic but I will toss in my two cents too.

The words "role play" have lost all their meaning in mmorpg. I agree with Elvis in the fact that any game that has the ability to create a customizable character, where the character grows with time and there are constantly things to do its an RPG. Then if there are multiple people online at the same time with you, then it is MMO+RPG.

In all my gaming years playing MMORPGs I have run into maybe 50 people that actually "role play" most other people are just playing a game and having fun with thier character. This doesnt mean that the game is no longer an RPG. I believe the Planetside is an MMORPG, because your character grows in ability as you play and there are constant things to do (granted it gets pretty repeatative). Just because people don't act like thier characters doesnt mean its not "role playing" because you are playing the character who can get in a robot device and shoot lasers...that is a role.

Its hard to point to any game now and say its a role playing game, because most people that play these games just want to play the game. Even D&D has lost its role playing fun. I know when I play, sometimes I will be in character, other times I am just like get me out of this hell hole I want my sword and I am done for tonight. Same with EQ, DAOC, AC1&2, SWG, PS, etc. some play a "role" and others play a "game." To each their own.

[BigJonno]

Sorry, but when I was playing Planetside, me and most of my fellow outfit members were roleplaying.

Well done. If I'd met people like you I may have played PS for a lot longer.

Swords and sorcery do not an RPG make.

Of course not.

By your definition, The Final Fantasy series isn't really a roleplaying game either.

I know. I've been going about the FF series not being RPGs for years.

The closest thing to Planetside, in my opinion, is Tribes 2. Give Tribes 2 huge, persistant worlds and characters and you have PS. PS gives you an excellent feeling of being involved in a conflict. I really like the game and enjoyed my time playing it. What it doesn't give you is any feeling of being in a world. There is nothing outside of the three-way struggle you're involved in and no real long-term goals. I always felt that I was in some kind of simulated warzone and never felt any attachment to the world. I will roleplay at the drop of a hat. I roleplay in MMORPGs when no-one else is. Hell, I even roleplayed when I played Morrowind and that's a single player game. PS never inspired me to do that, I just felt like I was playing a really big FPS.

[Elvis]

Originally posted by BigJonno
Well done. If I'd met people like you I may have played PS for a lot longer.Thanks for the compliment, but you and I both know that "a lot longer" really would have only added up to another month at most (see why below).I know. I've been going about the FF series not being RPGs for years.And there's the rub. The electronic gaming industry and its consumers think it's an RPG. Not everyone is lucky enough to have known what it's like to toss a few dice around that weren't just six-sided. ;).PS gives you an excellent feeling of being involved in a conflict. I really like the game and enjoyed my time playing it. What it doesn't give you is any feeling of being in a world.I felt that the immersion factor was amazing. The fact that it's in first person and there's all these amazing planescapes is great. Flying around with a full Galaxy and getting ready to hotdrop into a base, or running alone in an AMS and flanking the enemy so that your troops have an advantageous regen location. These all gave me a great sense of the game world I was involving myself in...but...There is nothing outside of the three-way struggle you're involved in and no real long-term goals. I always felt that I was in some kind of simulated warzone and never felt any attachment to the world. I will roleplay at the drop of a hat.Exactly. There's no long-term story arc or any sort of permanence to the game other than your character. That's the biggest flaw of that game. They're working on fixing it by making it possible to "outfit own" some bases and even attack sanctuaries, but beyond the grind of attack and capture, the gameplay is limited. You have a really good time when you're in a great outfit. You don't think it's an RPG when most of your time is spent playing in pickup squads and running around in "LFS" while on a hostile continent. Outfits had permanence and a throughline.

The problem, however, is that games like UO and EQ... they get by on depth (lots to do and lots of different ways to do it) and clutter (permanent storage, unique items, housing) but don't have any overlying struggle either. To date, the only MMORPG that I've played that has any sense whatsoever of what a good RPG is would have to be the Asheron's Call franchise (1 & 2). There's always and evolving storyline taking place along with bug fixes, balances, tweaks and new content/features. So, UO and EQ and games like those may not fall under your definition of a RPG either because they don't have any real reason or purpose or throughline to them either. They've got diversity and permanence, but that's it. I love a good story. This is why I always thought that "Evercrack was Whack." What's the point in levelling up if you are never part of something bigger than yourself?I roleplay in MMORPGs when no-one else is. Hell, I even roleplayed when I played Morrowind and that's a single player game. PS never inspired me to do that, I just felt like I was playing a really big FPS.I tried roleplaying in AC and pretty much gave up on the attempt when AC2 came along. My early work is still sitting in the Lore section at AC Stratics (I'm Kaifu, the wandering priest). I even made up my own in-game religious cult based off of some of the game's backstory. Did anyone care? Not really. They thought I was amusing, but it's difficult to convince someone to roleplay when a game rewards for how many Drudges you kill, not how convincing you are in you role.

[blue]

What's your definition of "Role-playing?"

After that's settled, we can actually start to debate.

[esion]

Originally posted by blue
What's your definition of "Role-playing?"

After that's settled, we can actually start to debate.

Exactly...well put blue; it all comes down to what you consider role playing.

[Elvis]

OK, we'll I'll give it a shot.

Role-Play: To assume the actions, life and background of a fictional person. To act out scenerios separate from one's own immediate real-life experiences. Role-play can be in any setting, in any genre or mood. The key element is "I am not me here and now. I am someone/time/thing else."

Role-Playing Game: A game where a person role-plays a different personna and exercises decision-making skills based on scenerios precreated by another person. They control all actions, decisions and evolution of that personna and are free to move (somewhat) spatially rather than (entirely) linearly through those scenerios. If real-time exceeds the allotment given for the running of these scenarios, time and space in this fictional reality (may) stop entirely and (most often) resumes apon the time of the role-player (and/or the scenerio-builder's choosing).

Computer Role-Playing Game: Same as above but done completely in an electronic format (computer, gaming console, gaming-enabled handheld, etc.).

See also: http://www.mythicahq.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9524#post9524

Pretty generalized definitions, but IMO, they need to be in order to include the entire genre. You don't need dice, a character sheet, stats, equpiment, permanent storage etc. to have a roleplaying game. It's all about the personna you are assuming and the nature of the scenarios you encounter.

[Halsy]

Holy crap! I just wrote out a huge piece on my take of all of this and I accidently nuked my browser before I could submit it. *sigh*
Let me try again (more of a summary as I have no desire to do it all again).

What defines a RPG are actions and consequences. An RPG constitutes, not only a backstory, but a living, thriving world that progresses with or without you. In PS you're a soldier fighting a war without any real consequence. It's about the accumulation of points, not about your actions. You don't have to deal with anything except other combatants. There's no consequence to your actions apart from the accumulation of points.

Fail to capture a base and you don't make points. Fail to save a village from maurding orcs and men, women and children die. Power without consequence isn't real power. If you lobbed a fireball into a city center or dropped a bomb, there would be consequences.

Example...
During a PnP session (and my DM always put us into positions where we had to weigh the consequences of our actions) we're in a small city. Our party is confronted by the local ruling gang. Things escalate into violence. As the party wizard I decide to toss a fireball and do the town a service by eliminating these thugs. Fireball goes boom and thugs are no longer a problem. However, this is a city populated by people doing people things as they are wont to do. Around the corner, in an alley, several children were playing. They died too. All of a sudden we're the bad guys. The local gang may have been bastards but they certainly didn't kill children-accidently or otherwise. Now we have a mob that wants our blood. How do we react to that? Submit to justice, or overwhelm them through force, further demonstrating our disregard for people and the law?

A RPG should always strive to involve moral relativism on the particpant's part. Simply allowing an individual or group to utilize power without consequence is shallow, to say the least.

The following quotes state it best.

"Principles are of no use if the idealist cannot live up to his own standards"
- R.A. Salvatore

"Acts and their consequences are the things by which our fellows judge us. Anything else, and all you get is that cheap feeling of moral superiority by thinking how you would have done something nicer if it had been you"
-Roger Zelazny

[BigJonno]

Mmmm, nicely put, Halsy.

[Scarne]

Well, if actions need to have consequences, you are probably stretching it to say any of the current MMORPGs are RPGs.

And having to deal with consequences can get old too. Just how many times in a row can your party accidently screw themselves over. :p

Some people prefer the high fantasy approach where the heros are mostly involved in doing good deeds.

[Halsy]

I didn't say MMORPGs were good-at least so far. :) This is why I'm hoping Mythica is going to change this. AI with their own objectives. Worshippers and Gods being able to get pissed with you or abandon you. All that stuff is definitely a huge step in the right direction. It's like they're always saying, they're trying to bring the SP experience to the MP environment.
Let's rock!

[Elvis]

Originally posted by Halsy
What defines a RPG are actions and consequences. An RPG constitutes, not only a backstory, but a living, thriving world that progresses with or without you. In PS you're a soldier fighting a war without any real consequence. It's about the accumulation of points, not about your actions. You don't have to deal with anything except other combatants. There's no consequence to your actions apart from the accumulation of points.Please bear in mind that my defiintion of roleplaying comes from my background. I have a B.A in Theatre and have written and published plays, directed, acted and done set design. My belief is that roleplaying and roleplaying games are all about two things:

Action and reaction.

I'd argue that action and reaction are more integral to what defines an RPG (not just that there is a reaction, but the nature and type of the reaction) than consequence.Fail to capture a base and you don't make points.There's a lot more to Planetside than just base capturing. This is the core of the gameplay (at least it was when I left) but there was a lot more to the daily activities than just base capturing. Teamwork, coordination, teamkilling (the grief point system was pretty influential in Planetside), strategy, politics (forming alliances with a rival empire to twart your common enemy), friendships, trust...

Action and reaction. You take one small base on a continent nobody else has links to and nobody will really notice. You take a couple bases that are on a major continent for another empire, and you'll start to get a resistance.

Action and reaction. You certify in a Mosquito (aircraft) and enjoy buzzing your friends in the infantry groups, diving hard, pulling up at the last minute and then hitting your afterburners. As a result, you tend to injure and even sometimes team-kill people in your own outfit and empire. How those people react determines the consequences of your actions. Do they let it slide, laugh about it and keep moving along? Do they get pissed off and kick you out of the group? I've been in situations where there was teamkilling with both of those reactions and both of those consequences.

Action and reaction. Moving away from Planetside... Your DM sets up scenerios for you. The roleplay here isn't what happens because of your actions, but the reaction you take to the problem, your actions, how the NPCs react, how you react to the outcome. You also react to the consequences.Fail to save a village from maurding orcs and men, women and children die. Power without consequence isn't real power. If you lobbed a fireball into a city center or dropped a bomb, there would be consequences.Consequences for who? For you? What if the orcs were raiding the village because the villagers had encroached into the territory they'd lived in for nearly 3000 years and had been killing off their game and foraging all of their food for several months? Action and reaction. If you can just lob a fireball into a crowded city square, do you really care about consequences? All you're looking for is a reaction. Sometimes that reaction sets other things in motion.Example...
During a PnP session (and my DM always put us into positions where we had to weigh the consequences of our actions) we're in a small city. Our party is confronted by the local ruling gang. Things escalate into violence. As the party wizard I decide to toss a fireball and do the town a service by eliminating these thugs. Fireball goes boom and thugs are no longer a problem. However, this is a city populated by people doing people things as they are wont to do. Around the corner, in an alley, several children were playing. They died too. All of a sudden we're the bad guys. The local gang may have been bastards but they certainly didn't kill children-accidently or otherwise. Now we have a mob that wants our blood. How do we react to that? Submit to justice, or overwhelm them through force, further demonstrating our disregard for people and the law?And, again, the point here is about: the city's reaction to your carelessness. Your reaction to how they treat you as a result.

Consequences are a dead-end. Reaction is cyclical.A RPG should always strive to involve moral relativism on the particpant's part. Simply allowing an individual or group to utilize power without consequence is shallow, to say the least.But upon whose moral base? What's evil to you is purely rational to another. Who says what's right? The majority of the populace? What if everyone else believes in something that you feel in your gut is evil? Do you try and stop it anyway? Would that make you the bad-guy?

Consequences are finite, reactions are branching and differentiate other genres from an RPG."Acts and their consequences are the things by which our fellows judge us. Anything else, and all you get is that cheap feeling of moral superiority by thinking how you would have done something nicer if it had been you"
-Roger ZelaznyThis is true, but it's based upon how people react to the actions you take. If you take an action and there's no reaction, there's no judgement and thus no consequences.

If you chop down a 1000 year old tree and nobody ever notices, what are the consequences? If that tree is tied into the lifeblood of the planet and suddenly everything begins to die, there's reaction to your actions. If everyone gets upset about the death and decide they need get revenge, there's a reaction. If they hunt you down and decide to kill you, there's a reaction. The consequence is your death.

If a DM told you, "you killed a 1000 year old tree and later you die," would you feel they were being fair? Where's the storytelling without the reaction? Consequences mean nothing if the reactions are not true to the entities giving them. That's what makes roleplaying (and film and television and theatre) work. Action, reaction and the believability of both.

If you've ever played this P&PRPG before. this is why, in Mage, the Ascension, you can get really hurt by the reactions of the unenlightened. The consequences are based on how your actions are interpreted by any witnesses (or the cosmic forces themselves) and reacted to. Paradox backlash sucks, but it can be lessened or even diverted by controlling reactions to your actions.

[Halsy]

I have a B.A in Theatre

Ever do any Elvis flicks on stage? :) Heh, seriously. I love the King, baby! I'm a huge Elvis fan. Like in Pulp Fiction, Elvis or Beatles man? I'm definitely an Elvis guy.

Anyway...

I'd argue that action and reaction are more integral to what defines an RPG (not just that there is a reaction, but the nature and type of the reaction) than consequence.

Reaction implies reflex without consequence. You can't act without consequence. Even reactions have consequences. From an RPG perspective it's consequence that matters, not how you react to something. I reacted to a gang of thugs trying to rob us and the consequence of my reaction was that they and some innocent children died.

Consequences for who? For you? What if the orcs were raiding the village because the villagers had encroached into the territory they'd lived in for nearly 3000 years and had been killing off their game and foraging all of their food for several months?

The motivation isn't so much as important as the fact that something of real consequence is occuring and you have a choice to make. Hell, you could just skip past the village and not involve yourself at all. You could wait till one side slaughters the other and than go kill those guys. The important thing here is that you're making some sort of judgement call. I have a nifty little parable about that very thing.
Three umpires are standing around one day and talking about the great game. The first umpire says, 'I calls 'em the ways I sees 'em'. The second umpire says 'I calls 'em the way they are'. The third umpire than says 'Well, that's all fine and dandy fella's, but just remember one thing...they ain't nothin' till I calls 'em'.

Consequences are a dead-end. Reaction is cyclical.

Consequences don't end. They're what you live with. Reaction-again-is little more than relfex. If you take a swing at me, I react and duck. Doesn't mean that I'm going to react further and swing back. Reaction in respect to what we're talking about is more about mechanics than ethics, and ethics are what's key to a good and immersive RPG.

But upon whose moral base? What's evil to you is purely rational to another. Who says what's right? The majority of the populace? What if everyone else believes in something that you feel in your gut is evil? Do you try and stop it anyway? Would that make you the bad-guy?

That's what moral relativism is (the theory that there are no moral absolutes and morality is really nothing more than what you decide is moral and isn't). So long as you're taking a position (good, neutral, evil) it doesn't really matter.

Acting is about reaction, it's immediate. However it's the character, the overall story and his actions and consequences that are our concern. Reaction is in the moment, and consequence is what you reflect on. It's that reflection that gives it depth and meaning.

[BigJonno]

There's a lot more to Planetside than just base capturing. This is the core of the gameplay (at least it was when I left) but there was a lot more to the daily activities than just base capturing. Teamwork, coordination, teamkilling (the grief point system was pretty influential in Planetside), strategy, politics (forming alliances with a rival empire to twart your common enemy), friendships, trust...

Capturing bases isn't just the core PS gameplay, it's the PS gameplay full stop. All the other things you mentioned are great and wonderful but absolutely nothing to do with PS itself. They are entirely player-driven activities and you could do all of them in a standard FPS, just on a smaller scale.

Slightly off-topic, I know, but I want to rant about the PS grief system. It's a great principle, but I lost count of the amount of times I got killed because some idiot threw himself into my field of fire. Bear in mind that I mainly used a scattergun MAX so I was slow-moving and short ranged. The worst instance was when a small group of TRs snuck into a base just before we captured it. I was one of the only people bright enough to keep defending it right until the end so I was the only one to spot them. Luckily I caught them in a narrow corridor and was doing a fine job of holding them off. (Power armour+big arse fully automatic shotgun+energy shield+enclosed space=carnage.) Then a couple of idiots come running in from behind me and get mown down, causing my gun to lock up and the TRs to overrun me. Suffice to say I was rather pissed.

[Elvis]

Originally posted by Halsy
Reaction implies reflex without consequence. You can't act without consequence. Even reactions have consequences. From an RPG perspective it's consequence that matters, not how you react to something. I reacted to a gang of thugs trying to rob us and the consequence of my reaction was that they and some innocent children died.Reaction without consequence? I implied no such thing. You react based on your character ... your role. The consequences of your actions are based on the reaction of your environment (nature, people, ego). What if you don't give a crap about the children in the alley? If you hadn't stop those evildoers, who's to say that they wouldn't have slaughtered 1000 children? Some characters might see the value of the few versus the many. A small group of children or an entire city? Remember your first roleplaying game where you had to choose an alignment? Your alignment was integral to your roleplaying experience because it helped determined how you'd react to your surroundings and conflicts.

You felt you had negatve consequences for blowing up those kids because your character's alignment thought the loss of those lives was tragic and damning. Perhaps so did the authorities governing the city you inhabited. The consequences for your actions depend on how you and they react to your actions.The motivation isn't so much as important as the fact that something of real consequence is occuring and you have a choice to make. Hell, you could just skip past the village and not involve yourself at all. You could wait till one side slaughters the other and than go kill those guys. The important thing here is that you're making some sort of judgement call.EXACTLY. You're reacting in a particular way based upon your alignment, morals, background... all that baggage that comes with your character and helps guide how you play your role.Three umpires are standing around one day and talking about the great game. The first umpire says, 'I calls 'em the ways I sees 'em'. The second umpire says 'I calls 'em the way they are'. The third umpire than says 'Well, that's all fine and dandy fella's, but just remember one thing...they ain't nothin' till I calls 'em'.There's an umpire at home, first and third. A runner on first base makes an attempt to steal second. The third base umpire calls him out based upon his observations. The home plate umpire calls time and explains to the other two umps that he had a clearer angle on the play and the runner was safe. The third base umpire's reaction can include but is not limited to the following: Defer to the home umpire because the rules say he probably should. Defer to the home umpire because he did have a better angle. Defer to the home umpire because he really doesn't care. Defer to the home umpire because he's intimidated by him. Overrule the home ump because he saw the play clearly. Overrule the home ump because he thinks he's right, but isn't 100% sure Overrule the home ump because he doesn't like the base runner.All of these reactions are based upon his "character," if you will. The consequences of his actions are based upon the reactions of his colleagues... the cycle goes on and on and on.Consequences don't end. They're what you live with. Reaction-again-is little more than relfex. If you take a swing at me, I react and duck. Doesn't mean that I'm going to react further and swing back. Reaction in respect to what we're talking about is more about mechanics than ethics, and ethics are what's key to a good and immersive RPG.Consequences may have long-lasting effects (and you may continue to react to the consequences for some time), but consequences and reactions are both moment-by-moment occurrances. Why did you duck the first time? Did you actually think I would try and connect? Your reaction is based upon who you are and who you think I am.

Let me elaborate a bit more on dramatic actions here, which I believe are the core of roleplaying (not necessarily roleplayin ggames).

Needs. Reactions. Actions. Needs

Do you want to fight me? Do you want me to continue to throw punches? Do you want to stop the fight? Do you want to avoid the fight? Why? What do you need at the moment.

Reactions

Reactions are both reflexive and decisive. You ducked the first time I threw a punch. This was an external reaction based on your needs (I don't want to get hit, it will hurt) and your interpretation of my needs (He wants to hurt me). You then have an internal reaction based on your needs. Do you throw a punch back at me because you want to fight me or want to knock me out so I'll stop? Do you continue to duck because you don't believe in violence? Do you run away because you think I want to hurt you, you know that you wouldn't win if we fought and you don't want to end up in pain?

Actions

Internal reactions are realized through action. You react based upon your needs and act to satisfy those needs.
That's what moral relativism is (the theory that there are no moral absolutes and morality is really nothing more than what you decide is moral and isn't). So long as you're taking a position (good, neutral, evil) it doesn't really matter.

Acting is about reaction, it's immediate. However it's the character, the overall story and his actions and consequences that are our concern. Reaction is in the moment, and consequence is what you reflect on. It's that reflection that gives it depth and meaning.I'm not saying that consequences are inconsequential, but they're just the results of reactions. Reactions are based upon the needs of your character. Your needs are based upon your alignment. Your alignment is based upon your background. That's what makes up a role. That's what helps make a roleplaying game immersive.

Bear in mind that all of this jibber jabber has very little impact on what the gaming industry uses to determine what is and isn't a roleplaying game.

To them, RPGs have stats and or skills, NPCs, environments and goals.

I'm still waiting for a highly-reactive CRPG. I doubt we'll see it soon, but Project Ego seems to be going along a path toward those ends.

[Halsy]

Well I think we're pretty much splitting hairs here. I'm definitely curious about Project Ego too.

[BigJonno]

If it's even half as good as it promises to be then it will be one of if not the best CRPG ever made. It just depends on whether or not it lives up to that promise.

And it's officially called Fable.

[Cassandra]

Man.. you people overcomplicate the meaning of roleplaying. As long as you are acting out an alterent persona from your own you are roleplaying. If you just think of your character as a virtual avatar of yourself then you arent roleplaying. If you dont put any effort into giving some life and difference to your character, your just socializing with a virtual avatar. Its simply, any place you play someone that is different from yourself could be considered a roleplaying game, some focus on it more then others but I havent seen any real roleplaying graphically games in the truest form yet.

I wish everyone could speak more plainly so the world would be alot more quiet. ;)

[Halsy]

Cassandra, that's oversimplfying things somewhat. The King I just prefer to approach the subject from a somewhat more analytical perspective. The gift (or curse) of humanities educated people everywhere.
I quite enjoy it.

Dagnabbit, Fable is Xbox only? I thought is was coming on PC too.

[BigJonno]

Yeah, Fable was always Xbox only, for two reasons. One, MS gave thema fat sack of cash and two, everything else is a pain in the arse to develop for, for one reason or another.

[Elvis]

One hardware. One software.

Developing for a console tends to be an easier experience because you don't have to worry about differences in hardware and software. It's provides for fewer crashes and lockups due to things like drivers and software compatibility.

[blue]

Originally posted by Cassandra


I wish everyone could speak more plainly so the world would be alot more quiet. ;)

Men like philosophical debate, even so, it would drive them to their death (i.e. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle).