Role-Playing GAMES

by Mike Lemmer

As I read recent editorials about the future of RPGs and their role as "interactive storytellers", a chill ran down my spine. In their zeal to label RPGs as the "stories of the future", the authors forgot one key fact: RPG stands for Role-Playing GAME. Not STORY, not MOVIE, but GAME. Now I will explain why the game aspect is so important to RPGs, and why an attempt to turn it into "a work of art" would have terrible results.

First, contrary to Seventhwind and Michael's opinions, RPGs need gameplay to survive. While the graphics, plot, and characters may be the icing on the cake, the gameplay is the dough that holds it up. Sure, you could make a cake without the dough, but then all you'd have is a pile of icing on a plate with a cherry on top. Making an RPG without gameplay would look appetizing, but would ultimately be an empty experience.

What many people fail to realize is that the mere act of designing a game with great gameplay is an art unto itself. Creating a system of rules that is easy to learn yet hard to master is a challenging task, but the result of such an effort will be appreciated long after other games have turned to dust. Take chess, for example: it's been around for what, 4000 years? It still has a healthy following that's constantly figuring out new patterns and strategies to win. Not bad for a game with no plot and outdated graphics.

Unfortunately, gameplay is an aspect of RPGs that needs some major improvements. Take a look at the combat system of almost any RPG (quite possibly the most important part) and you see a major lack of options. You can click "Fight" a lot and hack your way through or use some Magic against your enemies (which have strengths and weaknesses that, when figured out, make for a laughably easy fight). Most other commands or actions are useless. Run Away? In your dreams. Use items? Only to refill the MP you need to constantly blast your opponents (or heal your comrades). Parry? Pah-LEEZE!

Not only that, but the only thing that really counts in battle is how much direct damage you do. Ailments like Poison, Confusion, or Imp are ignored as possible options, and commands that affect stats (like Attack or Defense) are pushed aside in favor of that "Napalm Apocalypse" spell.

Now compare this to an old-school RPG like Dungeons and Dragons, with a competant DM and a group of skilled players running the show. The number of options are staggering. You could fight enemies outright, find a way to distract them or sneak around them, cast some spells on them that make them fall asleep (ailments in tabletop RPGs, for some reason, are much more effective than in electronic RPGs) or charm them into attacking each other, parley (talk) with them and possibly get them to join you, backstab them, or lead them straight into a trap. The potential dangers are also more varied, with devastating traps, planned ambushes, cursed items (a rarity in RPGs), and the occasional PC screwup. It doesn't matter how many HP your team has, or how much damage they can dole out in a turn: if you trip that 20-ton falling block trap, it's still *splat* game over. All of this results in a gameplay experience that is, currently, much more satisfying than any eRPG on the market. I use the "anything can happen" mentality in tabletop RPGs as the ruler I use to measure RPG gameplay by. Most come up horribly short.

(It is worth noting that when a game offers much more varied gameplay, it gains a large following. I attribute the success of such games as Final Fantasy Tactics, Fallout, and Deus Ex to their excellent variety. The plot might help drag them in, but it's the gameplay that hooks them.)

Now that I've finished my rant about the importance of gameplay, it's time to establish what a gamer wants in a plot. Michael, unfortunately, misses the mark completely. In his quest to make the outcome of RPGs depend on the player's moral beliefs and ethics, he wants to modify the save feature so that players can only save AFTER a major decision, not before it. His logic is that since players won't be able to go back to an earlier save and try a different decision, they'll put some serious thought into which path they'll take. While this view seems idealistic, in an actual game it would FAIL MISERABLY. Gamers are a curious lot that want to do everything possible, and they don't want someone telling them, "You have to choose one path and you can't go back and try another." Hate mail would flow like hot bat guano into the mailbox of any developer stupid enough to implement a feature like that.

Not only that, but the idea that a player's decisions in the story should reflect his beliefs in life is laughable. If people actually took the stuff we do in games seriously, all of us would be jailed for life. If you go on a fragfest in Unreal Tournament, does that mean you don't mind killing people? No. If you decide to play an evil character in Fallout and massacre entire villages, does that mean you're a terrorist? No, it means you got sick of taking the good path and decided to see what would happen if you played evil. The whole point of making choices in games is to answer the question "What if?". The nice thing about games is that if you don't like what happens, you can hit Reset and try a different route. (An option that all of us wish was in real life.)

Heck, if you REALLY wanted to make "player's decisions matter", you could have their saves automatically erased when their party gets killed off. I'm sure the players would LOVE that! Also, Seventhwind's opinion that all plots for games need a solid "central aim" is partially wrong. I find surprising that he would state this, since later in his article he says that games need "environments that you can really interact with" to make them good. If you have a truly interactive environment, you must let the story be flexible enough to change depending on the player's actions. It's inevitable that the player would try their own little "twist" on the story, and if the story has no answer for them, they'll be sorely disappointed. I would say that the best model for an interactive RPG story to follow is that the beginning and endings are pretty much set in stone, but inbetween, anything goes. Not only that, but the player must be able to mold the "central aim". Just because a game revolves around it doesn't mean that each player will react a certain way to it. Example: one player will try to destroy the Evil Overlord while the other will try to help the Evil Overlord. The "central aim" (the Evil Overlord) is still the same, but the reaction each player has to it is different. Taking a stance like this would still keep the game well-focused while allowing an incredible variety of choices for the player. Players love having choices; after all, it's one of the reasons that games are such a different form of storytelling, compared to movies and books.

Now that I've gotten the brunt of the argument finished, it's time for the little stuff:

Variety of solutions: Gameplay or Plot?

While Seventhwind places "having a variety of solutions" under "plot", I believe that it belongs under "gameplay". Plot gives the details of what's happening, while gameplay is when the player actually makes things happen.

The player/avatar conflict in Michael's second article:

An interesting way of handling it would be to allow a number of responses that are determined by the mood of your character and how much he/she likes the other character. For example, say that Dave and Rick are talking, you're controlling Dave's responses, and Rick says something extremely insulting. Now you have to respond to him. Say there's a total of six different responses to this, ranging from a friendly "Yeah, and your mother was a bloated cow!" to an angry "I'm gonna stuff my sword up your !&@*!" Based on Dave's mood and his relationship with Rick, the game will narrow this down. For example, if Dave and Rick have always gotten along good in the past, the more-friendly responses will be available, while the more-angry responses will be cut. It would be the exact opposite if Dave hates Rick's guts. The key to this is that the available responses would be broad enough to let the attitude of Dave fluctuate, thus allowing "friends" to be disgusted with each other and "enemies" to tolerate each other, while taking their previous moods and relationships into account.)

Old people don't like ganes without a good story:

I don't believe this argument. Tetris, one of the most popular games of all time, has no plot. The Sims, another popular game, just allows amazing amounts of interactivity. (Still no plot.) Not only that, but my dad (approaching the big 5-0 and thus an excellent test subject) plays Starcraft, Tetris, Lost Vikings, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Bros. It's not so much a matter of story as it is a matter of gameplay.

As for older people's reaction to RPGs? My dad's opinion:

"You're STILL playing that RPG crap?" *goes out of the room making gagging noises*
I think that older people believe that games are supposed to be fun, not have an interactive and deeply-involving story, or gore shooting out their ears, or stellar graphics and sounds. After all, we ARE talking about the same people that'll pass up all the new arcade games to plink a few coins into the Pacman or Galaga machine. Perhaps if we added Hi Scores back in...

Games' plotlines are trying to be philosophical and screwing it up:

Personally, I'm cautious of any game that takes itself too seriously. After all, who hasn't gone through life without thinking every now and then that the universe has gone insane? Perhaps the most philosophical thing a game can say is that you can never truly make sense out of life. Just roll with the punches, screw the philosophy, and go for it.

-Mike Lemmer

Weird Pete: "Hey Nitro, while the Bobsie twins are brawling I'm going through their backpacks."
(KoDT issue #18, "The After Action Review")