Ich habe *sehr viel* nachdedacht dar�ber, und stimme eigentlich eher Ddraig zu.
Ich habe meine Gedanken in einem - sehr pers�nlichen - Artikel zusammengefa�t :
Pondering about Roleplaying and Society.
I�ve recently had an interesting discussion at an official board of the RPG �Gothic I�.
After I had posted an article there about the social environment in Gothic I - groups mainly consisting of men, and women being treated like wares - I received quite harsh reactions. The �lonely voice of heresy� had spoken again. >;-)
What astonished me, was several things , a) the reactions on my article, b) the corrections received. Several people corrected me that the setting of an RPG doesn�t need to be realistic - and that includes the society in an RPG as well - as long as the setting is �right� , and believable.
Most of the people, however, didn�t understand what I had meant. I still wonder why.
I�m still wondering whether an RPG game attracts a certain type of player - riddle-based RPGs might attract people which like to lose riddles, and combat-driven RPGs might attract players who want action and combat.
I�m still wondering whether it makes sense or not to take a look at the society incorporated in an RPG. A game might be fun, without any real society at all, but with it, another game might be more �realistic�.
Realism, however, is always a relative thing : A game incorporating magic isn�t that much realistic as well.
Do I really need to take care of the make up of a society within an RPG if so many players don�t really care ? Do I really need to ponder about building different groups in an RPG as long as the players mainly want combat ?
As I�ve stated before, there are too many combat-driven RPGs out there, for my own taste. Well, critics could now say : �Well, dude, if you want to solve riddles, then you should play an Adventure instead !� Negating the fact that there are no more only riddle-based Adventures out there. Almost EVERYTHING is combat-driven nowadays. �So,� critics could continue, �the fact that adventures are dying out is a clear sign that no-one wants them, isn�t it ? And the rise of the Action-Adventure sub-genre is a clear sign that people don�t want to solve riddles, isn�t it ?�
I really don�t know. I feel outnumbered by those who swim by the main stream.
Ah, the main stream. Of what does the �main stream� of players actually consist ? If I look at the sheer amount of combat-driven games in *all* genres of computer games, I could deduce that the �main stream� consists of male players who want action and combat. No mercy for the NPC.
Am I right ? Isn�t that just another clich� ? Where are the female players in that �main stream� ? Isn�t �The Sims� a game that is being played to a great amount by female players ? Or isn�t that another clich� ?
That�s how I get back to my first theme : Society. �The Sims� is clearly about socialization. No combat at all. Which leads me to the question whether it would bore an RPG player to have such an layout of society in an RPG game or not. Some people would say �yes�. But I still wonder how great would be that group. As a publisher, would I be at the �safe side� to listen to them ? Would I be at the �safe side� to keep my games combat-driven ? Would I be at the �safe side� if I don�t let innovative, creative new aspects into a game ? From the point of view of an accounting clerk working at a games publisher, everything new is a risk. A great risk, sometimes. We can observe this when we take a look at the mood following an extraordinary successful game : Such a game always has quite an amount of �followers� or clones�. Producing �clones� of a highly successful game is no risk. But it isn�t innovative either.
Other highly innovative games have drowned in the negative financial results they produced. There are gems out there, which are only known to a very small number of buyers (and editors, of course). Gamespot lists some of them as �the most underrated games of the year�. So, what�s the result : Produce highly effective games, clearly leaned on to successful games (copying their layout), and putting only a small amount of creativity and innovation into it. That�s it, at least from the point of view of an accountants clerk.
Looking at the myriad of clones following after Blizzard�s huge success, socialization clearly isn�t in them. For example. Philosophy is another point. I�ve met boards where the people are not willing to read a longer text (like this one, for example), and are heavily opposed towards philosophy in general. I guess these are the kinds of people who find the Lord of the Rings great - but only because of their combat scenes, and didn�t understand the departure from Middlearth at all. No thinking, just fighting. Action is the essence of it all.
As a summary, I still feel like �the lonely voice of heresy�, because I feel as if I�m rarely understood. No-one wants philosophy nowadays (as it seems �unproductive� to people), and no-one wants to waste time by solving riddles , neither in Adventures, nor in role-playing games. No-one cares about the society in an RPG, as long as it is just fun to play it. (Ever wondered how a single evil enemy is able to collect such a high amount of minions around him or her without them having any social layout at all ? How does this guy keep the control over his minions ? Or are they just designed to become cannon-fodder for the glorious heroes, as brainless, social-less by-standers ? )
I still have the opinion that there is deeper thinking required to build a credible role-playing game, but the average gamer seemingly isn�t interested in that. I fear that this might be true as well for the average developer.
In Germany, we have a saying, that goes like this : �Millions of flies cannot be mistaken.�
Alrik.
