[Article] The Rules of Immersion: Why RPG Gamers Fight All t : Othor Games

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:36 am

I suspect the author hasn't really touched many RPGs. There are more comprehensive definitions derived many years ago. I for one is not the "most people" mentioned in that article.

I have my own life and it's fine, I don't want to be an elven mage who cast fireballs at random feline just for the fun of it.

I've been playing RPGs for about three decades now. My intent was never to provide an exhaustive definition of RPGs but to identify a key point of division in the community, which I think it has done. Saying "RPGs are x" is identical to saying "art is x". The best philosophers in the world aren't arrogant enough to claim that they have the final say in the matter.

If you don't play RPGs for the fun of it, why on earth do you do it? :blink:

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:43 am

Actually they can. You try playing Planescape: Torment with a low intelligence character.

I haven't played that yet. I wasn't aware that there were games that prevented you from making informed decisions. My apologies.

» Sat May 12, 2012 6:47 pm

This is a very clear, concise definition of the rule-oriented half of the RPG equation. Statements like "rpgs are not about playing dress up" and "rpgs are not about proving your acting skills" are statements of preference, not statements of fact. When LARPs became popular way back when, most of the people that I knew in RPG circles considered LARPers too hard-core. Those people were taking their RP way too seriously. The fact that you don't happen to like those elements doesn't exclude them from the discussion. Let me add balance to your statement by providing an alternate definition:

RPGs are not about adhering slavishly to a set of rules, and they are not about proving your ability to read tables of data. They are about creating a character and giving him direction and watching him develop. You (the player) are not the character, you are the actor who experiences the character's world through the eyes and ears of the character, and your choices for him lead him to his success or failure based on your ability to make informed decisions.

Stick the two one-sided arguments together and you have something resembling a RPG.

Character distinction is required for something to be an RPG. That means there need to be rules governing what any given character can and can't do. The rules do not need to be deep. They can be as shallow as a handful of classes, without any sort of progression at all. But there do need to be distinctions. The later game you've described requires no character distinction to properly work, and on it own cannot be classified as an RPG. It might be an adventure game or an action title or a racing sim. We don't know without the rest of the mechanics described.

So RPGs are not about playing dress-up. They're also not not about playing dress-up. The point being dress up is an addition to the formula, not the formula itself.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:57 am

The first part of the article seem to fail to re-create the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model by leaving out the "simulation" or "world" part. Not a good start.

Not supposed to be an exhaustive definition. It's only 2000 words. You could write a book about it.

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:06 am

I haven't played that yet. I wasn't aware that there were games that prevented you from making informed decisions. My apologies.

Well, there's a really good reason why so many people on this forum consider it to be one of (if not the) greatest RPG of all time

.

» Sat May 12, 2012 6:39 pm

Character distinction is required for something to be an RPG. That means there need to be rules governing what any given character can and can't do. The rules do not need to be deep. They can be as shallow as a handful of classes, without any sort of progression at all. But there do need to be distinctions. The later game you've described requires no character distinction to properly work, and on it own cannot be classified as an RPG. It might be an adventure game or an action title or a racing sim. We don't know without the rest of the mechanics described.

So RPGs are not about playing dress-up. They're also not not about playing dress-up. The point being dress up is an addition to the formula, not the formula itself.

Rulesets define the character's limitations. They define the role the player adopts. They don't give the player a reason to play. The alternate definition is intentionally one-sided: it supplies some of what is missing from the rule-bound interpretation. The way most rule-oriented players talk, you'd think role-playing was a painful and odious burden.

"I don't play to have fun!"

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:36 pm

...snip...

And I think that's a very fair and reasonable opinion. Skyrim is too lenient. I would appreciate having a lot more rules. I have several dozen mental rules already, and all of them are designed to restrict my character. I doubt most of the people here arguing for stricter rules would even put up with the rules I play by.

But I think it's a mistake for people to argue, for example, that making the environments more immersive is counter to RP. In my opinion, immersive environments are essential to RP because when I RP I want to be intimately immersed in the world that my character inhabits. That psychological connection is the heart of RP for me. The rules make the character interesting and challenging to play but it's the participation that is important. I don't expect other RPers to share my priorities, and I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I possess "the truth", but I do think that this forum suffers from overly rigid thinking which prevents people from having discussions instead of arguing. That rigidity will lead to stagnation, not rebirth. I see a lot of "they need to go back to the way they used to do things". Rarely do I see "how can we make this better?". Frankly, that attitude scares me more than the Red Menace of the industry "streamlining" games for "console players".

Thanks for your reply.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:45 am

Not supposed to be an exhaustive definition. It's only 2000 words. You could write a book about it.

You're still leaving out one of the main reasons people play RPG - to experience a functioning, fascinating, alternative world. Not for their role in it, not for the rules, for the world itself.

Funny, considering these are Bethesda forums, and this is the one company which consistently manages to make beautiful, detailed and fascinating worlds with an ill-defined role to play (and clichéd, unintelligent stories to go with it) and game rules ranging somewhere between "simplistic" to "broken".

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:57 am

You're still leaving out one of the main reasons people play RPG - to experience a functioning, fascinating, alternative world. Not for their role in it, not for the rules, for the world itself.

So you speak for everybody when you say this? This is the problem I have with these arguments...

» Sat May 12, 2012 11:10 pm

Rulesets define the character's limitations. They define the role the player adopts. They don't give the player a reason to play. The alternate definition is intentionally one-sided: it supplies some of what is missing from the rule-bound interpretation. The way most rule-oriented players talk, you'd think role-playing was a painful and odious burden.

"I don't play to have fun!"

The rule set can very well give the player a reason to play. Though it doesn't have to. The point remains that you're describing things like setting and story and saying those are essential for something to be an RPG. They're not.

Imagine a game in single level with no narrative. Your goal, get from point A to point B. You can think up a reason you must get to point B, but it's pretty irrelevant. The only goal of the game is to cross the finish line. Now, withou any further stipulations, this game could manifest itself as a twitchy first person shooter, an arcade racer, a platformer, a puzzle game, an RPG, or basically anything else. What is it then that distinguishes the genres? Setting isn't really an answer. You could have a fantasy dungeon that plays like an FPS. Neither is narrative, one of the nintendo 64 wrestling titles had branching storylines based on your actions in the ring.

What sets them apart are the rules. An RPG has distinctions between characters. Limitations that would prevent one character from using the same equipment or accomplishing the same feat as another. That's the distinguishing criteria. Anything else is incidental.

» Sat May 12, 2012 3:13 pm

I hate the idea that an impossible clutz or someone with motor skill problems could never play a skilled thief because no matter how adept their character is THEY could never pick the lock. I suppose I'm in the camp of prefering all my character's abilities to be based on ingame skill ranks and not my own abilities.

There is a misconception about my argument here: I'm all for character abilities determining my chance of success at performing a task as long as the game makes the task organically more challenging instead of arbitrarily impossible. My opinion is that the lockpicking mini-game could be refined to the point where it occupies a position anologous to the hybrid RT/RP combat mechanic: it could be enjoyable without being too easy. I think it's premature to rule out the possibility that new game mechanics can still be invented. I'll always advocate an auto-option alongside the action-option because I believe that giving players choices about how they play the game makes the game better.

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:07 am

You're still leaving out one of the main reasons people play RPG - to experience a functioning, fascinating, alternative world. Not for their role in it, not for the rules, for the world itself.

Funny, considering these are Bethesda forums, and this is the one company which consistently manages to make beautiful, detailed and fascinating worlds with an ill-defined role to play (and clichéd, unintelligent stories to go with it) and game rules ranging somewhere between "simplistic" to "broken".

If you read my posts you'll see that this reason is very important to me as well. I just didn't talk about it in the article.

» Sat May 12, 2012 6:56 pm

You're still leaving out one of the main reasons people play RPG - to experience a functioning, fascinating, alternative world. Not for their role in it, not for the rules, for the world itself.

Funny, considering these are Bethesda forums, and this is the one company which consistently manages to make beautiful, detailed and fascinating worlds with an ill-defined role to play (and clichéd, unintelligent stories to go with it) and game rules ranging somewhere between "simplistic" to "broken".

It may be a reason to play a game, but it doesn't mean that defines what a roleplaying game is. I've played plenty of games to experience other worlds... and those games weren't RPGs.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:00 am

The rule set can very well give the player a reason to play. Though it doesn't have to. The point remains that you're describing things like setting and story and saying those are essential for something to be an RPG. They're not.

Imagine a game in single level with no narrative. Your goal, get from point A to point B. You can think up a reason you must get to point B, but it's pretty irrelevant. The only goal of the game is to cross the finish line. Now, withou any further stipulations, this game could manifest itself as a twitchy first person shooter, an arcade racer, a platformer, a puzzle game, an RPG, or basically anything else. What is it then that distinguishes the genres? Setting isn't really an answer. You could have a fantasy dungeon that plays like an FPS. Neither is narrative, one of the nintendo 64 wrestling titles had branching storylines based on your actions in the ring.

What sets them apart are the rules. An RPG has distinctions between characters. Limitations that would prevent one character from using the same equipment or accomplishing the same feat as another. That's the distinguishing criteria. Anything else is incidental.

Every game has rules. Strategy games are defined by the distinctions between units. Co-op action games have equipment restrictions and class abilities. Is Team Fortress a RPG? In any case, the fact that Skyrim allows you to use any skill and use any kind of equipment does not disqualify it as a RPG. What about GURPS? And I never argued that setting was important: I argued that players play RPGs to adopt the role of a character other than themselves so that they can experience that character's development over time. You can make RPGs set in the present.

» Sat May 12, 2012 3:30 pm

Playing in first person simply means seeing through your character's eyes. Shooting a bow in first person means seeing through his eyes and telling him to shoot an arrow after some target in real time. None of that is a violation of "some RPG purist's vision of archery". Auto-aim, on the other hand, is a violation of that vision since it takes choice away from the player. With auto-aim, I can't tell my character where to aim. Why would any RPG purist want that? Percentages should determine if my character can hit what I'm asking him to aim at, but not what I'm asking him to aim at. VATS has that same problem.

I'm not saying everything should be pause and click, pause and click, and all from a third person camera. That's just presentation, after all, and not a particularly immersive presentation at that. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be my abilities to aim with a bow, my ability to hit my mouth with a bottle, my ability to piss without stinting on my boots, or my ability to pick a lock that determines whether my character can do all those things properly. By all means, let me tell my character what to do from a first person perspective and in real time, but don't let my skills override my character's abilities.

But the sad truth is, you're not picking a lock. Your character is, because you told him to do so, but you yourself are not. I wouldn't mind a better presentation of lockpicking than what you had in Morrowind, but why do I, the player, need to pick even the simplest of locks for my character, when I don't need to do anything else for him? I don't repair weapons, he does. I don't equip stuff, he does. I don't combine ingredients and mix them into potions, he does. Yes, I tell him exactly what to repair, what to equip, and what to mix, but the actual repairing, equipping, and mixing is done by my character.

Why, then, can even the most skilled lockpicker in Skyrim not open a cheesecake lock without my help? It isn't sensible, it isn't consistent, and it doesn't make me feel more immersed into the game.

I suppose that's one major difference between us. I want a first person sandbox RPG from Skyrim, you want a shooter-hybrid.

Very well thought out post, I agree completely.

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:26 am

So you speak for everybody when you say this? This is the problem I have with these arguments...

Which part of "one of the main reasons" (as opposed to "the main reason") was hard to understand? Not everyone weights those reasons similarly, of course.

If you read my posts you'll see that this reason is very important to me as well. I just didn't talk about it in the article.

I read your posts. You still refer to the "two sides", a lot. Thing is, there is more than two sides to what an RPG is.

@Khamsin: Yes, Simulationism is part of what makes an RPG; it always was. Read the article I linked, then check the discussions we had back in the 1990-ties, when role-playing theory was first created on the Usenet.

» Sat May 12, 2012 5:16 pm

Every game has rules. Strategy games are defined by the distinctions between units. Co-op action games have equipment restrictions and class abilities. Is Team Fortress a RPG?

I would argue that there do exist strategy games that are very much RPGs (I mean, there's a whole subgenre of strategic/tactical RPGs). I wouldn't have an issue classifying Team Fortress as an RPG, either. It's incredibly shallow, with distinctions existing only between classes rather than also within them. The difference being, Team Fortress doesn't have any baggage. No one is going to call out Team Fortress for being a poor RPG, because nobody cares. That's the difference between highly shallow RPGs and things like TES or Fallout that were once very developed and now seem to be switching focus.

In any case, the fact that Skyrim allows you to use any skill and use any kind of equipment does not disqualify it as a RPG. What about GURPS? And I never argued that setting was important: I argued that players play RPGs to adopt the role of a character other than themselves so that they can experience that character's development over time. You can make RPGs set in the present.

Wasn't referring to Skyrim, which is clearly an RPG. Not sure how GURPS fits into this either. I'm just trying to spell out precisely what sets an RPG apart from other games. Setting, breadth of choice (in narrative and character construction), freedom, equipment, enemies, etc are all just part of the background. They don't define whether something is or isn't an RPG. They just distinguish between RPGs I do want to play and RPGs I don't.

» Sat May 12, 2012 5:26 pm

Which part of "one of the main reasons" (as opposed to "the main reason") was hard to understand? Not everyone weights those reasons similarly, of course.

Sorry, my fault for not reading properly. :facepalm:

» Sat May 12, 2012 6:48 pm

Should have seen the character/person skill for the lock picking mini-game discussion in Fallout section.

That got hairy.

Overall I'm a role person.

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:16 am

It's a preference I have on role-playing games. In action games, hands-on tasks are what they are, a part of the game, but in RPGs the actions of your character should depend on your character's abilities rather than the player's. What should depend on the player are the decisions. What to do when, what abilities to use, if applicable what abilities to improve, where to stand in expectation of some nasty trap, what equipment to wear at what times, and so on. Those are decisions I want to make on behalf of my character, but I sure as heck don't want to carry those decisions out myself. I don't want to unbutton the top-most button, then the next button, then loosen a strap, then unhook a strap, and then unbutton a third button, just to change my outfit, but I don't mind aiming my bow in first person and ordering my character, through my mouse, to aim just a bit higher, just a bit higher, maybe a bit to the left, nope, back a bit to the right, there, fire! That's me making decisions and my character carrying out my decisions. My decisions has a great deal of impact on what target my character is aiming at. Whether he hits what I'm asking him to aim at should depend (IMO, obviously) on his archery skill, archery "perks", and possibly on raw character attributes as well. I get to see through his eyes and his decisions are made by my brain, but all actions depend on my character's skills.

This is very reasonable. But the lockpicking mini-game (for example) was created to simulate a feature of the game world that players can then interact with. It's not essentially different from being able to pick up a cup and move it around or riding a horse. It adds interactivity to the world. It makes the world more 'real'. The fact that it was implemented as a mini-game instead of as a 3d object is a reflection of the complexity of the interaction.

Should the difficulty of the mini-game be proportionate to the character's skill? Yes. You're never going to hear an argument against that. I don't think anyone who likes the mini-game has ever argued otherwise. And it's obvious they tried to scale it somewhat to the character's skill because it does get easier. It's obvious that the design is inadequate (probably because they were afraid people would complain about it being too difficult) and the loss of the auto-pick option is unfortunate (probably removed to encourage players to take the lockpicking perks; ie. to promote role-playing) but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Should people like me--who want to be able to participate in my character's actions--be prevented from using mechanics like this because other people--who apparently don't want to participate in the same way--don't like it?

» Sun May 13, 2012 2:51 am

Not sure why its called RPG in the title. Hes pretty much talking about the Elder Scrolls exclusively. Other than the word immersion (never want to hear that again), I agree with a lot of that article.

Also, I guess I'm one of the few people actually able to define what a cRPG is.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:18 am

The article touches upon a much broader idea a smart person thought, but I refined it a little bit mainly adding in the social category and some examples that are video games as opposed to table top games. I have a hunch in my gut I may be missing a perspective, but this still gives a very good oversight into why people like to... experience things. In general.

Narrativist Perspective: Prefer drama, character, and plots to other parts of a game. Think Mass Effect as a prime example, it doesn't foist much on you as a gamer and it isn't letting you simulate a role but a pre-defined one. Though all games have overlap, same with all gamers.
Gameist Perspective: Prefer to play the game as a game. They prefer something like Diablo or Borderlands, something that generally makes it abundantly clear they're in the game and there to get the most loot and advance the furthest.
Simulationist Perspective: Prefer to get into a role, but for a different reason than a narrativist. They enjoy the simulation aspect of it. A game like Fallout New Vegas or Skyrim tends to appeal to them most. Given a blank slate they like to define their role and play it out. But tend to do it in a simulaiton way. If elves aren't renowned smiths he won't really want to play an elven smith for example. Generally loves playing a lot for the exploration and immersion into the background elements of story telling. Of the four archetypes narrativist and simulationist usually go hand in hand and share large overlap.
Social Perspective: People simply in it to be there and part of a phenomenon. They don't like or hate the game, but will follow the pack of friends to whatever game is new or fun. Social interaction is key for these people, it's the whole reason they play games in the first place.

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:33 pm

The forum community has only gone in a downward spiral ever since release...miss the days a month or two before release....glory days of this forum.

The downward spiral has being heading down the drain on these forums since the release of Oblivion.

The game whose release has caused a drop in forum quality varies with release date. There used to be those around here who would say the same of Morrowind. YMMV. :shrug:

EDIT: Nice article, OP.

» Sat May 12, 2012 3:16 pm

Skimmed through the article, didn't read any of the thread and I'm still going to give my opinion. Why? Because a RPG is a game where one plays a role. If you can role-play while playing it, it's an RPG.

Dude, CoD: Black Ops is an RPG. I was a badass with multiple personality disorder. I played Fight Club in Vietnam. What did you do today?

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:48 am

The forum community has only gone in a downward spiral ever since release...miss the days a month or two before release....glory days of this forum.

Joined: 02 Aug 2011

:facepalm: