Re: Elements of different games

From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:01:44 +0000

I won't include the whole article, as I don't have much to say about it directly.

I do think that Role-Playing and strategic playing mix badly, in general.  I have
always viewed role-playing in games such as Galaxy as irrelevant at best, and of
negative value at worst.  Let me explain why:

If you are roleplaying on top of the best strategic and diplomatic moves you can
make, then your role is very much cramped by the strategic and diplomatic
decisions you have already made.  To me, role-playing is making the decisions and
acting the way someone else would, rather than what you would do.  Otherwise, you
are merely role-playing yourself.

If on the other hand you do play as the character you have invented has, then you
are not playing your best strategic game, in general.  Role-playing characters,
for better or worse, tend to be much more 2-dimensional than us real humans, and
so react to circumstances in a more predictable and generally less strategically
sensible fashion.

In practise, the only role-playing I see in Galaxy-type games is either in styles
of writing messages [where the object appears to be to write your message in a
particular style, without losing content] which is fun, but more or less
irrelevant or in the megolomaniac "I am going to rule the world" type
declarations, which are usually accompanied by poor play, or invite mass
invasions.

However, I don't think that the two cannot be mixed.  I think they can, but only
in a game where the strategic players play strategy, and the role-players
role-play, and where the two only intereact at the fringes - one game is the
backdrop for the other.

John

References

Elements of different games
rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace)
Mon, 09 Aug 1993 14:35:28 +0000