A huge question. You have those who think juggling some numbers is roleplaying. Those who think being immersive is roleplaying. And those who think you have to play your own role.
Doubt we will see any agreement on this one!
Of course not. If everyone agrees, there is little discussions.
At the same time, people can argue about definitions all day, but at the end, the devs cater their games to whoever they want, and definitions matter very little.
at a cost of $700- $1500+ a day devs most certainly do not cater their games to what they want, they build to a specification, and that specification is based on a design, and that design is based on influences from all stakeholders and the perceived desires of the target demographic(s). Definitions are important as they are part of the target domain that feeds into the design process (will we build an Action MMO, or will we cater for the demographic that enjoys RPG's for e.g)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
There are lots of different types of role players, the one in the youtube vid is something of a 'narrator' which can be a tad one sided, you don't really need to narrate your actions like that, doing things in character as a role playing is often far less verbal, and more about what you do, rather than saying what your doing. Finding a balance and having fun is the main thing.
In my opinion, I don't think there are STILL Role Players in every MMORPG. I'm an addict player or in short, it's my hobby. I think Role player is when you only do good things. XD. You only follow the rules of the game. You are not greedy on the loot. Don't PK. Just playing and enjoying the game. No bad records on the game. Do you still think there are role players in every game? XD. Exclude GMs
Originally posted by TotoyDonut In my opinion, I don't think there are STILL Role Players in every MMORPG. I'm an addict player or in short, it's my hobby. I think Role player is when you only do good things. XD. You only follow the rules of the game. You are not greedy on the loot. Don't PK. Just playing and enjoying the game. No bad records on the game. Do you still think there are role players in every game? XD. Exclude GMs
Roleplaying has nothing to do with being "good". You can roleplay an evil character. It's only really contentious when you start to define how one roleplays. Are you roleplaying simply by controlling a character or do you need to deliberately act only as your character would act? I tend to think the latter but I understand the other arguement. So with that said if I'm playing a character in Grand theft Auto I can roleplay that I'm a gangster. I can kill people from other gangs when they encroach on my territory and so on. I can steal cars and I can do all of this as a roleplayer so long as that is how I think my character as a gangster would act.
From that however, what methods could be used on part of systems placed within an MMORPG (strictly defined from "Roleplayer" as defined above within this post), that would actually promote this type of game play? Somewhere in these forums or some other, someone mentioned "penalties for min-maxing". That is in general a good start, and possibly good based on expansion and implementation. What other concepts could be in this direction?
1. Immersion. Theoretically if one is immersed enough in the world being the character should be natural. This is the big one and everything else to support roleplaying should support this really.
2. Selectively playing with other roleplayers.
3. Good GMs. GMs that weed out people not roleplaying. IE someone with a name like I_AM_BAD and never talks in character has no reason to be in a roleplaying game or server but there would be less obvious examples where GMs would need to intervene.
4. Good and accessible lore. Doesn’t have to be simple but a character should have all they need to know in order to make a character that fits in with the lore and how to stay within it and ofcourse it should be fun to do so.
5. Ability to express ones character as desired so long as it’s not immersion breaking aka outside of the games lore. I think emotes are a good example of this. Really high hopes that things like SOEmote can take this kind of things to the next level with their facial expression capture and voice altering technology.
6. Immersion. I’ve run out of obvious examples and it needs to be said again, everything that supports immersion supports roleplaying.
A huge question. You have those who think juggling some numbers is roleplaying. Those who think being immersive is roleplaying. And those who think you have to play your own role.
Doubt we will see any agreement on this one!
Of course not. If everyone agrees, there is little discussions.
At the same time, people can argue about definitions all day, but at the end, the devs cater their games to whoever they want, and definitions matter very little.
at a cost of $700- $1500+ a day devs most certainly do not cater their games to what they want, they build to a specification, and that specification is based on a design, and that design is based on influences from all stakeholders and the perceived desires of the target demographic(s). Definitions are important as they are part of the target domain that feeds into the design process (will we build an Action MMO, or will we cater for the demographic that enjoys RPG's for e.g)
.. since they can use whatever definition they like, i would say your definitions, or definitions from random people on the internet matters very little.
Otherwise, why would they be putting so much solo content, and decrease the importance of virtual persistent world in what they call MMORPGs?
From that however, what methods could be used on part of systems placed within an MMORPG (strictly defined from "Roleplayer" as defined above within this post), that would actually promote this type of game play? Somewhere in these forums or some other, someone mentioned "penalties for min-maxing". That is in general a good start, and possibly good based on expansion and implementation. What other concepts could be in this direction?
1. Immersion. Theoretically if one is immersed enough in the world being the character should be natural. This is the big one and everything else to support roleplaying should support this really.
2. Selectively playing with other roleplayers.
3. Good GMs. GMs that weed out people not roleplaying. IE someone with a name like I_AM_BAD and never talks in character has no reason to be in a roleplaying game or server but there would be less obvious examples where GMs would need to intervene.
4. Good and accessible lore. Doesn’t have to be simple but a character should have all they need to know in order to make a character that fits in with the lore and how to stay within it and ofcourse it should be fun to do so.
5. Ability to express ones character as desired so long as it’s not immersion breaking aka outside of the games lore. I think emotes are a good example of this. Really high hopes that things like SOEmote can take this kind of things to the next level with their facial expression capture and voice altering technology.
6. Immersion. I’ve run out of obvious examples and it needs to be said again, everything that supports immersion supports roleplaying.
Ah, thanx. Yeah, you obviously caught my original reply here before I decided to create a new thread. I t occurred to me that the definition of a "roleplayer" is obviously answered (no matter what mindless babble continues here about it), and thus the next question has more interest at this point. I also have since looked through the RP threads. Still not really seeing anything in the direction I was thinking though, although definitely took some notes. Even of what appeared to seem obvious. At this point though, I am done with this particular thread, as I stated already... "Roleplayer" is obviously defined.
A huge question. You have those who think juggling some numbers is roleplaying. Those who think being immersive is roleplaying. And those who think you have to play your own role.
Doubt we will see any agreement on this one!
Of course not. If everyone agrees, there is little discussions.
At the same time, people can argue about definitions all day, but at the end, the devs cater their games to whoever they want, and definitions matter very little.
at a cost of $700- $1500+ a day devs most certainly do not cater their games to what they want, they build to a specification, and that specification is based on a design, and that design is based on influences from all stakeholders and the perceived desires of the target demographic(s). Definitions are important as they are part of the target domain that feeds into the design process (will we build an Action MMO, or will we cater for the demographic that enjoys RPG's for e.g)
.. since they can use whatever definition they like, i would say your definitions, or definitions from random people on the internet matters very little.
Otherwise, why would they be putting so much solo content, and decrease the importance of virtual persistent world in what they call MMORPGs?
MMOs are now designed to maximise player base so they cater to that, not to "whoever they want" to. You do get the odd MMO that goes for a niche, but that's very rare, the vast baulk of the industry aims at maximum player base. Perhaps with more Indie MMOs that will change but right now, that's where we are.
MMOs are now designed to maximise player base so they cater to that, not to "whoever they want" to. You do get the odd MMO that goes for a niche, but that's very rare, the vast baulk of the industry aims at maximum player base. Perhaps with more Indie MMOs that will change but right now, that's where we are.
You just sink your own argument. If there are odd MMOs, devs are going for whatever audience they want.
And who says they are designed to max player base? Some do. Some go for more revenue in cash shops. Some go for short term box sales. It all varies. And if there is any variations, it is about what the devs want.
MMOs are now designed to maximise player base so they cater to that, not to "whoever they want" to. You do get the odd MMO that goes for a niche, but that's very rare, the vast baulk of the industry aims at maximum player base. Perhaps with more Indie MMOs that will change but right now, that's where we are.
You just sink your own argument. If there are odd MMOs, devs are going for whatever audience they want.
And who says they are designed to max player base? Some do. Some go for more revenue in cash shops. Some go for short term box sales. It all varies. And if there is any variations, it is about what the devs want.
I don't know why you are taking this stance, if you want to think the majority do not seek to maximise player base, that's fine. The whole history of MMOs has been about broadening the player base and looking to bringing in MMO players from any area they could. We talked about MH the other day, not really a MMO, but with some MMO like features. Same applies to games like that, in fact to gaming in general. Saying 'some do' grossly underestimates the design philosophy of modern gaming. But we don't agree, so be it.
MMOs are now designed to maximise player base so they cater to that, not to "whoever they want" to. You do get the odd MMO that goes for a niche, but that's very rare, the vast baulk of the industry aims at maximum player base. Perhaps with more Indie MMOs that will change but right now, that's where we are.
You just sink your own argument. If there are odd MMOs, devs are going for whatever audience they want.
And who says they are designed to max player base? Some do. Some go for more revenue in cash shops. Some go for short term box sales. It all varies. And if there is any variations, it is about what the devs want.
I don't know why you are taking this stance, if you want to think the majority do not seek to maximise player base, that's fine. The whole history of MMOs has been about broadening the player base and looking to bringing in MMO players from any area they could. We talked about MH the other day, not really a MMO, but with some MMO like features. Same applies to games like that, in fact to gaming in general. Saying 'some do' grossly underestimates the design philosophy of modern gaming. But we don't agree, so be it.
Who said that? read carefully. I said devs go after whatever audience they want. If it happens that most of them go for the maximum of the player-base, that is not inconsistent with that is what they want.
The fact that there are those who do not shows that they do have the freedom to do so. A majority doing something does not mean that they are forced, it just means that the particular preference (in this case, mass market) is popular.
MMOs are now designed to maximise player base so they cater to that, not to "whoever they want" to. You do get the odd MMO that goes for a niche, but that's very rare, the vast baulk of the industry aims at maximum player base. Perhaps with more Indie MMOs that will change but right now, that's where we are.
You just sink your own argument. If there are odd MMOs, devs are going for whatever audience they want.
And who says they are designed to max player base? Some do. Some go for more revenue in cash shops. Some go for short term box sales. It all varies. And if there is any variations, it is about what the devs want.
I don't know why you are taking this stance, if you want to think the majority do not seek to maximise player base, that's fine. The whole history of MMOs has been about broadening the player base and looking to bringing in MMO players from any area they could. We talked about MH the other day, not really a MMO, but with some MMO like features. Same applies to games like that, in fact to gaming in general. Saying 'some do' grossly underestimates the design philosophy of modern gaming. But we don't agree, so be it.
Who said that? read carefully. I said devs go after whatever audience they want. If it happens that most of them go for the maximum of the player-base, that is not inconsistent with that is what they want.
The fact that there are those who do not shows that they do have the freedom to do so. A majority doing something does not mean that they are forced, it just means that the particular preference (in this case, mass market) is popular.
/grumble
Do you have any idea how much i hate agreeing with you narius...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Jemcrystal "What makes some one a role player?"
I think that it is about immersively "porting" yourself into a game world. That is, who we are is defined, in no small way, by the context in which we live. In application to "roleplaying", one voluntarily assumes the context of the game in question and tries to function within that context, just as they do in their real life context.
In this sense, some people just stay who they are and jump in. Other people want to be someone different and use the game in question as a gate to an alternative reality of escape. It just depends on how one chooses to react to the said change in their context.
But "getting inside" the target context as a person is key. This is why "roleplayers" harp about immersion. And this is what separates the usual "visitor" to an in-game world and the "roleplayer" within the in-game world.
Many people ask, "Is it about having a second, virtual life?" For me, if I ever wanted to do it, my answer is, "No." I don't want a "second life". I consider it an exercise in porting who I am into a "thought experiment" (if you will), which is primarily about fun and adventure, but also about considering alternative possibilities and their constituent complexities.
Consequently, I would dare say that most MMORPGs are not really "MMORPGs", even in the loose sense of being roleplayer friendly in terms of offering choice, customization, and so on.
Waiting for:Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on:www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
" 'Someone who plays a role playing game is not automatically a role player.'
Indeed. "
"Uhhh no
Why is this hard?
A 'Role Player' is someone that plays a role. Why is this so hard to grasp."
And, in an MMORPG, what role are you playing? An avatar character, without qualification. This means that just directing an avatar character to do certain things as your real life self outside the game is not "roleplaying"--that's no different than operating an inanimate object like a tool or machine.
Waiting for:Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on:www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
" 'Someone who plays a role playing game is not automatically a role player.'
Indeed. "
"Uhhh no
Why is this hard?
A 'Role Player' is someone that plays a role. Why is this so hard to grasp."
And, in an MMORPG, what role are you playing? An avatar character, without qualification. This means that just directing an avatar character to do certain things as your real life self outside the game is not "roleplaying"--that's no different than operating an inanimate object like a tool or machine.
You are playing what role they offer..no qualification needed. In fact, what qualification is needed? Anyone can role play. Why is this so hard to grasp?
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Role Player: A player playing a specific role. It's kind of a poor way of explaining it since you use the same words to define itself. That's typically a "no no", but since "role player" isn't in Webster's dictionary we have to take each word literally.
Now the effectiveness, skill of the Role Player is a different story. Some people play a role only within the bounds of the game mechanics, which means "My character is an assassin so I use assassin skills the game created for me." Although you aren't "in character" you are still playing your role. Others as I just said, get into character and go beyond just playing a role based on the game mechanics. They also direct their character with certain ideologies. "I am a Templar and hate assassins because they have no honor! I'll best anyone that attacks me, but I'll attack assassins on sight!" In this case, the player makes a bigger role for themself and without being tied to the game forcing you into a certain role.
So I'd say we should rate games on how likely a player is to venture beyond the bounds of the mechanics of the game AND if the game even allows sufficient tools to do so effectively. Sadly, most MMORPG players are general MMO gamers at heart and don't care much about "becoming" the character moreso than what the game tells you to do. It's typically not the fault of the game, it's the fault of the given community.
In fact...I challenge you all. Role play the next role posted!
I bet all of you can do so...
First role....down and out fish net maker on the coast where you were washed ashore...
There you go...that's your role for now...
When I first arrived on these ill gotten shores I could hardly turn my hand to anything. But the space in my belly was large enough to stand in for life skills in a hand to mouth existence.
OR
Press button to make net, press button to cast net, press button to reel in fish.
- - - - - - -
I leave you to work out which one I think is roleplaying.
Comments
at a cost of $700- $1500+ a day devs most certainly do not cater their games to what they want, they build to a specification, and that specification is based on a design, and that design is based on influences from all stakeholders and the perceived desires of the target demographic(s). Definitions are important as they are part of the target domain that feeds into the design process (will we build an Action MMO, or will we cater for the demographic that enjoys RPG's for e.g)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I'm not gonna try and define it, but if anything could, this video series is literally the best I've seen on roleplaying for beginners:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNUOm0X-itWdwCT2Uvias3GcxGT2GBzzE
There are lots of different types of role players, the one in the youtube vid is something of a 'narrator' which can be a tad one sided, you don't really need to narrate your actions like that, doing things in character as a role playing is often far less verbal, and more about what you do, rather than saying what your doing. Finding a balance and having fun is the main thing.
Roleplaying has nothing to do with being "good". You can roleplay an evil character. It's only really contentious when you start to define how one roleplays. Are you roleplaying simply by controlling a character or do you need to deliberately act only as your character would act? I tend to think the latter but I understand the other arguement. So with that said if I'm playing a character in Grand theft Auto I can roleplay that I'm a gangster. I can kill people from other gangs when they encroach on my territory and so on. I can steal cars and I can do all of this as a roleplayer so long as that is how I think my character as a gangster would act.
1. Immersion. Theoretically if one is immersed enough in the world being the character should be natural. This is the big one and everything else to support roleplaying should support this really.
2. Selectively playing with other roleplayers.
3. Good GMs. GMs that weed out people not roleplaying. IE someone with a name like I_AM_BAD and never talks in character has no reason to be in a roleplaying game or server but there would be less obvious examples where GMs would need to intervene.
4. Good and accessible lore. Doesn’t have to be simple but a character should have all they need to know in order to make a character that fits in with the lore and how to stay within it and ofcourse it should be fun to do so.
5. Ability to express ones character as desired so long as it’s not immersion breaking aka outside of the games lore. I think emotes are a good example of this. Really high hopes that things like SOEmote can take this kind of things to the next level with their facial expression capture and voice altering technology.
6. Immersion.
I’ve run out of obvious examples and it needs to be said again, everything that supports immersion supports roleplaying.
.. since they can use whatever definition they like, i would say your definitions, or definitions from random people on the internet matters very little.
Otherwise, why would they be putting so much solo content, and decrease the importance of virtual persistent world in what they call MMORPGs?
Yep, I copied and pasted it into your new thread. If anyone wants to discuss my answer than do so in this thread please http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/425251/How-Could-Roleplaying-Be-Promoted-Through-InGame-Designs.html otherwise I won't be responding. I'm done here too.
MMOs are now designed to maximise player base so they cater to that, not to "whoever they want" to. You do get the odd MMO that goes for a niche, but that's very rare, the vast baulk of the industry aims at maximum player base. Perhaps with more Indie MMOs that will change but right now, that's where we are.
You just sink your own argument. If there are odd MMOs, devs are going for whatever audience they want.
And who says they are designed to max player base? Some do. Some go for more revenue in cash shops. Some go for short term box sales. It all varies. And if there is any variations, it is about what the devs want.
I don't know why you are taking this stance, if you want to think the majority do not seek to maximise player base, that's fine. The whole history of MMOs has been about broadening the player base and looking to bringing in MMO players from any area they could. We talked about MH the other day, not really a MMO, but with some MMO like features. Same applies to games like that, in fact to gaming in general. Saying 'some do' grossly underestimates the design philosophy of modern gaming. But we don't agree, so be it.
Who said that? read carefully. I said devs go after whatever audience they want. If it happens that most of them go for the maximum of the player-base, that is not inconsistent with that is what they want.
The fact that there are those who do not shows that they do have the freedom to do so. A majority doing something does not mean that they are forced, it just means that the particular preference (in this case, mass market) is popular.
This is the traditional interpretation of the term.
It really comes from table top games, where you assumed the mantle of the character you created.
Maybe he was Glimrok, the hot headed but loyal dwarf warrior.
Someone who plays a role playing game is not automatically a role player.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
/grumble
Do you have any idea how much i hate agreeing with you narius...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I think that it is about immersively "porting" yourself into a game world. That is, who we are is defined, in no small way, by the context in which we live. In application to "roleplaying", one voluntarily assumes the context of the game in question and tries to function within that context, just as they do in their real life context.
In this sense, some people just stay who they are and jump in. Other people want to be someone different and use the game in question as a gate to an alternative reality of escape. It just depends on how one chooses to react to the said change in their context.
But "getting inside" the target context as a person is key. This is why "roleplayers" harp about immersion. And this is what separates the usual "visitor" to an in-game world and the "roleplayer" within the in-game world.
Many people ask, "Is it about having a second, virtual life?" For me, if I ever wanted to do it, my answer is, "No." I don't want a "second life". I consider it an exercise in porting who I am into a "thought experiment" (if you will), which is primarily about fun and adventure, but also about considering alternative possibilities and their constituent complexities.
Consequently, I would dare say that most MMORPGs are not really "MMORPGs", even in the loose sense of being roleplayer friendly in terms of offering choice, customization, and so on.
Waiting for: Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on: www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
"Someone who plays a role playing game is not automatically a role player."
Indeed.
Uhhh no
Why is this hard?
A "Role Player" is someone that plays a role. Why is this so hard to grasp.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
And, in an MMORPG, what role are you playing? An avatar character, without qualification. This means that just directing an avatar character to do certain things as your real life self outside the game is not "roleplaying"--that's no different than operating an inanimate object like a tool or machine.
Waiting for: Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on: www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
You are playing what role they offer..no qualification needed. In fact, what qualification is needed? Anyone can role play. Why is this so hard to grasp?
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
In fact...I challenge you all. Role play the next role posted!
I bet all of you can do so...
First role....down and out fish net maker on the coast where you were washed ashore...
There you go...that's your role for now...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
So I am a "role player" playing the role of myself, sitting in front of a computer, controlling a toon to rake up xp in a video game?
Role Player: A player playing a specific role. It's kind of a poor way of explaining it since you use the same words to define itself. That's typically a "no no", but since "role player" isn't in Webster's dictionary we have to take each word literally.
Now the effectiveness, skill of the Role Player is a different story. Some people play a role only within the bounds of the game mechanics, which means "My character is an assassin so I use assassin skills the game created for me." Although you aren't "in character" you are still playing your role. Others as I just said, get into character and go beyond just playing a role based on the game mechanics. They also direct their character with certain ideologies. "I am a Templar and hate assassins because they have no honor! I'll best anyone that attacks me, but I'll attack assassins on sight!" In this case, the player makes a bigger role for themself and without being tied to the game forcing you into a certain role.
So I'd say we should rate games on how likely a player is to venture beyond the bounds of the mechanics of the game AND if the game even allows sufficient tools to do so effectively. Sadly, most MMORPG players are general MMO gamers at heart and don't care much about "becoming" the character moreso than what the game tells you to do. It's typically not the fault of the game, it's the fault of the given community.
When I first arrived on these ill gotten shores I could hardly turn my hand to anything. But the space in my belly was large enough to stand in for life skills in a hand to mouth existence.
OR
Press button to make net, press button to cast net, press button to reel in fish.
- - - - - - -
I leave you to work out which one I think is roleplaying.