We Have No Lives:
RPGs, Players, and The Future

Introduction

We began each session by acknowledging the futility of defining computer roleplaying in a couple of one-hour sessions. (Amongst ourselves we even debated whether trying to define the form had any value at all, no matter how long the discussion lasted.)

In addition, we took it as a given that each person in the room had some knowledge of the history of the genre and a highly personal list of favorite or most significant games. This seemed likely to be a rat-hole, another fruitless discussion, and chose not to delve into history or significance, either.

So where did this leave us? There was a real risk of sitting in uncomfortable silence for an hour each day. Not a good thing…

We decided to avoid sitting quietly for a couple of hours by taking a more utilitarian approach to the analysis and discussion of computer roleplaying games. Our agenda was as follows:

1. We asked attendees to participate in the creation of a list of critical tools available to RPG developers. (Interestingly, this list could easily stand as a definition of computer roleplaying…)

2. We followed up by encouraging specific discussion of games that had made particularly good (or bad) use of each tool.

3. Finally, we pondered whether RPG's were really the Next Big Thing (as many seem to feel these days) or whether we're doomed to niche status.


Tools

The tool list generated by attendees on Day One matched almost precisely the list we made up in advance (in case we had a bunch of deadbeats in the crowd and ended up lecturing). The group from Day Two came up with a list that was all but identical and came up with it in virtually the same order. This congruence of thought leads us to believe there's some validity to our tool list. Here, without further ado, is the combined Moderator/Day One/Day Two RPG Tools List:

Clearly, many of these tools are common to all forms of computer gaming, not just RPG's. Luckily, we ran out of time LONG before we got to some of the more generic items on the list. In fact, on Day One, we made it through only the first two items on the list: Story and Conversation. On Day Two, we generated the list again, but skipped over the tools we'd discussed earlier and jumped right into Player Rewards, Player Character Development and the nightmare that is Stats.

Story
Everyone agreed an RPG had to have a story, but there was much debate about whether that story should unfold in linear fashion or with multiple branch points.

It was generally agreed that a linear story almost inevitably meant a more powerful story whereas a branching storyline had the advantage of giving players at least the illusion of freedom.

The closest we came to consensus was that perceived freedom was more important than actual freedom. This could be read as an argument in favor of powerful, linear stories. The example most often sited of a successfully implemented linear story game was Final Fantasy VII (though other console games were mentioned as well). Though there were dissenters, FF7 was cited as successfully giving players the illusion that they were in control when, in fact, they were not.

Conversation
All in attendance agreed that every RPG needs a conversation system of some kind - you must be able to interact with non-player characters in ways that don't involve killing them.

All in attendance agreed that every conversation system ever devised and implemented, well, sucked. No one has yet come up with a system that doesn't draw you out of the game world and remind you that you're just manipulating pixels on a screen.

Among the approaches discussed were:

There was general agreement that some form of "auto-history" or recording device was desirable, so players could review conversations after the fact. (Some folks argued this was unrealistic and shouldn't be done.)

Few in the group could identify emotional moments generated by RPG conversations but everyone agreed achieving such moments would be a Good Thing.

If anyone out there knew how to create the Perfect Conversation System, they weren't talking.

Player Rewards
Our roundtable participants cited many types of rewards for player actions and choices:

Perhaps the most intriguing notion that came up was the idea that the most compelling "reward" a game could offer was the ability to respond to player choices. In other words, players should be rewarded by seeing the game (storyline, NPC, whatever) react differently if you sneak around rather than blasting everything in sight. Enthusiasm would be high, at least among the attendees, for an RPG that rewarded Player Character Differentiation in direct, observable ways.

Player Character Development & Differentiation
Everyone agreed that an RPG had to allow the player character to grow and change as a result of player choices.

Clothes Make the PC: Clearly, according to our attendees, roleplaying games need more in the way of shopping. Though this idea sounds silly, it introduces an intriguing subject. Specifically, how important is a player character's appearance to the whole roleplaying experience?

The group was split pretty evenly between people who thought clothes should affect how NPC's and the world respond to PC's. Actually, I think most people thought this would be cool but several thought it was too difficult to implement. Paperdolling, especially in a first-person game, where you can't see your character except on a 2D screen of some kind, was held up as necessary (though, again, there was no consensus on this point).

Stats & Skills: Everyone agreed that Stats and skills could be effective character differentiation tools but we put off discussion on the subject, since we had Stats listed as a unique RPG tool. (See below.)

Player or Character: There was some discussion of whether it was better to use prefab characters (Indiana Jones, for example, or Duke Nukem) or let each player create his or her own unique persona. Several people commented that they find it annoying when they are forced to do and/or say things because the designer thinks their character would do or say that thing. No consensus was reached but the majority opinion seemed to be that player choice should take precedence over character and/or designer "choice."

Offshoots of this subject included a brief discussion of voice acting and the power of voice to enhance character in a player's mind. Another offshoot saw us wondering if "Karma" or some external measure of player behavior was good and/or necessary. Most of the attendees seemed as if they'd be satisfied as long as the game responded in some way to whether the player acted in a good or evil fashion. At the very least, these seem like issues all RPG developers must think about and take a stand on.

Stats
There were some dissenters, but nearly everyone agreed that some tangible measurement of your character's prowess and progress was necessary if a game were to be considered an RPG (let alone be a successful RPG…)

There was agreement that use of a skill or stat should result in obvious feedback. Some examples suggested:

Two games, Wasteland and Diablo, were held up as examples of games that used stats and skills effectively. These games used stats as rewards, as a way for players to refine their characters with a great deal of control and precision, as a way to individualize player experience in ways the limited storylines didn't offer.

Most people in the group seemed to feel that the more stats you tracked and the more finely you tracked them, the better. This seemed like the best way to differentiate one character from another. However, there was consensus that, if you're going to track stats and skills, increases have to be meaningful to players and differences between characters of differing skill level have to be immediately obvious to players.

However, a small, very vocal and very persuasive minority argued in favor of the stat-free RPG. In other words, they felt that hidden die rolls and finely tracked stats were hold-overs from papergaming. This led to a bunch of unanswered questions:

The only published stat-free roleplaying game cited was System Shock (and there was some question about whether that was an RPG or not…). Attendees will likely watch responses to the upcoming Thief: The Dark Project for a clue about how players feel about stats (or the lack of them) in roleplaying games.

There was general consensus that stats are cheap and easy. Showing changes in the world, or in a location, or in NPC reaction is very, very hard. We can do stats; we may not be able to do the stat-free game, yet.

The whole stats/no stats issue promises to be hotly contested among RPG developers in the coming year.

Niche or Next Big Thing?
There's been a lot of hype about RPG's over the last year. Talk about the hype led to more questions than answers:

One of the critical problems cited in reaching the mass market with an RPG was the fact that, unlike puzzle games or shooters, RPG's require an investment in time many people are unwilling to make - you can't just jump into the middle of an RPG. You have to be there from the beginning.

Solutions to this problem were few and far between. The only suggestion that seemed likely to bear fruit was the introduction of features (and complexity) in a staged fashion. Start off simple, hook players, and keep them hooked by giving them more to do as time goes on. Everyone hoped that an RPG that offered enough fun right from the outset would keep even mass market types playing.

In addition to time investment, business considerations also limit the likelihood of mass market RPG's. Funding offers a significant reality check. One attendee brought up a direct inverse correlation between game complexity and the willingness of a publisher to jump into making an RPG. Without an easily graspable storyline or a way to ease novices into the game, most publishers will turn away or, at best, minimally fund an RPG.

This leaves the question: How far do you compromise before it you're just selling out? A quick poll of the room revealed a little over ten of the thirty-odd attendees were currently developing RPGs. The next question, "who is funded right now?" left two or three hands in the air.

In the end, there was consensus on one point: Someone better do an RPG that sells a million units so "they" will let us make some games that don't.

Summation
Everyone that spoke in our roundtable seemed to have definite set views on things. The "linear story" camp was very clearly delineated from the "total freedom" camp. The "no-stats" people and the "many-stats" people divided themselves quickly, too. People seem to have messianic beliefs about RPG's, perhaps more so than developers working in any other genre. Findings ways to compromise is difficult, like trying to sort of implement the Death Penalty. In the end, it is probably for the best that there are many games out there with many different styles. Trying to dilute them to please everyone will probably end up pleasing no one.

Back to GDC Archive

Copyright © 2000 CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy