Who needs to win?
Last night I listened to the conclusion of Wizards of the Coast’s D&D podcast series. After an arduous battle, our heroes Acquisitions Incorporated defeated the evil necromancer and surveyed the treasure still remaining in the half-defiled crypt. Wil Wheaton, through his character Aeofel:
We are totally not taking that treasure. This guy came here from Calarel. Listen, I know this might cost me my job, […] but this guy was sent here from Calarel to defile this tomb and steal from these people who gave their lives to defend this tower and turn back the goblins and bring light to the land. And to steal treasure from this tomb would be an affront to all of the gods. […] That would be a Lawful Good thing to do: close the tomb and seal it and not take anything…
As I listened to Wil’s surprisingly impassioned speech, and the protestations of the other party members, a thought popped into my head: role-playing is when you make poor gameplay decisions on purpose.
That’s not an all-inclusive definition — role-playing is also when Wil swears his Oaths of Enmity in an imaginary language, for example — but I think it’s a fair assessment of its outward manifestation, especially in video games.
When I wrote about Chrono Trigger last year, I mentioned that I tend to include Marle and Lucca in my party even when they weren’t the best options. Marle in particular doesn’t fit my playing style; I wanted to use her slot for a healer, but both Frog and Robo have more efficient spells that can restore the entire party at once.
Having Marle in my party didn’t help me win; in fact, it often made things more difficult. I brought her along based on something that, for gameplay, is entirely meaningless: Crono would have done it. That’s video game role-playing. (Incidentally, this time through I’ve been using Frog instead and the game seems much easier.)
It’s not just RPGs where I’ve exhibited this sort of counterproductive behavior. In the Civilization games, I insist on picking peaceful leaders and building a strong cultural foundation (libraries, universities, Wonders of the World) instead of doing anything practical (creating an army to ward off an impending invasion). I’ve never once come close to a military victory, except on the wimpiest difficulties. Needless to say, I’ve always been terrible at Civilization, though the Culture mechanic introduced in Civ III means that I’m not as hapless as I once was.
Looking further back, it seems I’ve been playing this way my entire life. I used to hold back my bloodied Footmen in WarCraft II so that they didn’t die in battle, though they were faceless, uesless, and easily replaceable. I’d routinely “call” Saria in Ocarina of Time when she had nothing new to say, because she told Link he could talk to her anytime. I’d pay money for a room at the inn in each new Morrowind town because staying at the Fighter’s Guild before meeting everyone seemed an abuse of their hospitality.
Perhaps a more charitable way of framing my definition is that role-playing reflects an interest in story participation in addition to gameplay-defined victory. But from the perspective of the latter, my experience has been that it’s often comically ineffectual.
What I liked about this post is how you recognize that role-playing doesn’t mean sacrificing ALL gameplay “optimization”. You still recognized that you needed a healer, and used Marle – all too often I see people go out of their way to maul their party’s cohesiveness with a chainsaw in the name of flavor/role-playing. It’s totally possible to do both!
I think an extension of this idea is aesthetic value of equipment in MMOs. I played Final Fantasy XI for a year (compared to a few months with WoW), and I know that I hated my outfit not being terribly cohesive. Particularly at the lower levels, optimal outfitting meant none of your armor going together, which sucked. I went out of my way to do quests or farm drops that made my equipment good for both gameplay and LOOKING good.
…this post makes me sound really effeminate, but hey, looks matter.
Sage: Thanks for your comment. I agree that role-playing doesn’t have to be wholly incompatible with gameplay. It seems fair to assume a modicum of logic in your character’s behavior; Crono can both want to have Marle around and want to stay alive, right? :-)
Your point about aesthetics is well taken (though I’m not sure it has anything to do with effeminacy). I’ve definitely created character classes around the available armor and weapons so that I’d be maximally effective with the coolest-looking stuff. And why not? Even in a single-player game there is inherent pleasure in customizing your character, so we might as well make the most of it!
Incidentally, I’m always amused when games begin with incredibly detailed character creators, and then moments later strap a helmet over your meticulously crafted facial features…and then you spend the whole game staring at the back of that avatar’s head anyway. I love character creators all the same, though.
I can relate to this post. The Chrono Trigger example was quite apt. In my playthroughs of Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross, for example, I would make sure that my party members would be relevant to the situations at hand. For example, I would find it a disservice to do the Black Omen without Magus as his fate is directly tied to it. Or I would make sure that Lucca and Robo are together in most situations that would involve one or the other, just because of their unique relationship. It doesn’t necessarily do anything for the gameplay, but it just feels right. Granted, part of me brings them along just to see if they would have interesting things to say during the current part of the journey as well, but I mainly do it just because that’s how it seems it should be.
Even in saying this, though, I wish that different party combinations would have more of a narrative impact on one’s journey. Unless the game makes it extremely evident that a certain character should be there (or even forces you into having a certain character in your party), the dialogue is usually quite interchangeable. Sure, characters may say things in their unique styles of speaking or whatnot, but they don’t usually seem to have their own opinions on things. The short of it, I suppose, is that party member selection should always have more of a narrative impact, but that would require more work on a developer’s part.
I recommend Daniel Floyd’s video about choices & problems. It’s interesting to me that the idea of a “poor gameplay decision” only relates to problems, not choices. I wonder how a game’s choice/problem ratio affects its propensity for roleplaying.
JPLC: I also enjoy it when character differences go beyond the superficial, but as you say, that means exponentially more work. For a game as meticulously crafted as Chrono Trigger, I suspect it would have been very difficult to have branching narrative paths based on different parties or characters.
I do make sure to have Marle in the party during the resurrection, though. Sometimes, the dialogue changes are enough.
Matthew: Hah! I love those videos. :-) Using Floyd and Portnow’s lingo, a poor gameplay decision definitionally relates to a problem, since choices do not have a correct answer and a decision cannot be “poor.” However, I think that role-playing is more strongly tied to choices, and that both provide opportunities for role-playing.
Consider the BioShock example from the video: if the player is rewarded for saving the Little Sisters (a problem), the decision can be reduced to “I will save the girl to get the ADAM.” If he is not (a choice), the decision might be “I will save the girl because that’s what Jack would do.” The latter encourages role-playing because there is no goal but the narrative; the utilitarian approach does not apply.
In that light, I suppose my post is really about how role-players interact when presented with problems. For people like me, a less-than-ideal gameplay solution is still a viable option.
Dan Bruno: Ah, the resurrection. I totally know what you mean. Marle not being there would just be heartless. =P
And I’ve seen that series of videos as well. Great pieces, they are. I wish more games would present choices than problems, but it would require much more work to do properly.
And I would have to admit, since you brought up the Bioshock example, that I would be way more interested in the game if the Little Sister situation was a choice instead of a problem. Hypothetically, though, if the situation was a choice to begin with, do you think people would have complained that there was no real gameplay benefit to making any decision? Do you think people would claim that it would be unnecessary filler? Would people in this scenario WANT a problem? I would find it marvelous if it was a choice, but I can’t help but think I may be in a minority on that in the wide scope of gamers.