The key is understanding the difference between the video games definition and the RPG industry definition, especially with regards to the limitations of the media.

A key feature behind Zelda RPG, for example, was being able to take the setting beyond what was seen in the games – of breaking open limits and giving the players freedom. You will never get that in a video game, simply because of the time it takes to create assets for use in the game, as well as changing the source code. You are restricted to what the game provides (although sometimes it can be expanded through a friendly mod community).

In short, video games are always going to be limited, but they are also controlled. People get lost in freedom. It’s all to easy to get overwhelmed, and when given the opportunity to do absolutely anything, they end up doing nothing. A lack of freedom provides direction and management.

Take the discussions on railroading, for example – railroading happens all the time, but only ever becomes a problem when the tracks are so obvious and forces the PCs to go where they don’t want to go. It’s never a problem when the tracks are going exactly where the PCs want to go anyway – they will just sit back, enjoy the ride, even though it’s the exact same method.

This is how video games are designed – they are all railroads, and hopefully the players will spend so much time enjoying the railroads in the directions they want to go, with the limited choices they actually have, they they won’t worry about the fact that they are being railroaded.

Yet, this is exactly the issue when such players reach RPGs – GMs often fail to realise their players are used to being railroaded, and just set them loose to do whatever. This causes the players to become overwhelmed, often resulting in them doing nothing, waiting for some prompting, to head off looking for tracks, or just randomly doing stuff out of confusion.

It’s very rare that CRPG players ever get to go through an RPG tutorial or something of that kind that let’s them gently learn what they need to know to make up for the difference in mindsets. That’s basically it – and many RPG players and GMs are too pretentious or prejudiced to have the tolerance to understand, let alone handle, this type of change. Even though this change happens in every shift of mindset from one experience to another, regardless of task. Whether it’s a change of jobs, a change of cultures, or undertaking a new hobby, there will always be a learning period as you mentally adjust from one to another. Unfortunately, when there’s people involved, they don’t always have enough tolerance to allow for such a shift, even though they would expect that they be given time to adjust while making such a shift themselves.

I know from my personal perspectives that a lot of the “deeper roleplaying potential” is fun, but only if it aligns with these simpler goals. It’s very rare that the deeper aspects are specifically chosen unless they are made fantastical. Why just have a friend, when you can have a friend that is fantastically cool?

Computer and console games are locked into particular patterns because that’s what we can program them to do. It’s a heck of a lot easier to tweak a set of rules in a home game of D&D than to tweak anything in World of Warcraft.

As such each side has pros and cons, neither is perfect, and we should either ignore each other as much as possible or try and work together. Your Zelda RPG is a perfect example of peacefully coexisting. I can think of other games such as Mortal Combat which could have the setting converted into a tabletop RPG (I thought the movies were cool, if a bit cheesy at times). I’m guessing however that licensing prevents folks from doing that and making any money (i.e. the Zelda RPG is free through DVOID).

But that approach effectively drops the video game definition persay and adapts it as a more traditional RPG.

I totally agree that escapism is a good thing. We all need our release valves.

Yet, as much as I am keen to defend the Roleplaying Games hobby from such ignorance, there is some basis in truth here with this assumption. You are dealing with two very different media, with very different constraints, and as such the expectations of a true RPG will most likely never see fruition within a video game, simply because what a true RPG as the RPG industry defines it is choice – the ultimate freedom to go anywhere and do anything, that video games will never be able to compete with.

Thus you are left with the video games definition, which is fairly apt – because unlike other forms of media, games are all about the interactivity. The setting doesn’t matter as much as the gameplay, and thus knowing whether a game is a first-person shooter, a platformer, an arcade racer, or a roleplaying game is more important than knowing whether it is fantasy, sci-fi, western, or horror.

As you say – you simulate life on a regular basis, so why would you want to play it in a game? This is exactly my point. Yet, would you be more interested to know that you can be a Ghost Hunter, a Secret Agent, a Super Villain, or an Inventor in the Sims? How about becoming a Vampire, or a Ghost, or having a Robot or Mummy in your family? That you could go on to have a string of love affairs, become a Master Thief and steal from the homes of others, or become a major celebrity?

This is just the appeal of one sim – you get to control a whole family of them, a whole town of them. The emergent gameplay of the Sims is pretty much as close to true roleplaying as you’ll likely get in a video game. It’s just the fact that it is about modern life – something we all have and pretty much all take for granted, so it doesn’t seem all that appealing.

Think for a moment – what about all those gamers who play while in the armed forces while serving in warzones like Iraq and Afghanistan. What games do they play? I’m pretty sure that they are less likely to play games revolving around modern warfare, simply because this is something they already have experience with on a daily basis, even though many others not in those circumstances probably would have played games set in just a genre because of how different it is to their normal life.

I never understood the fascination with the Sims, whereas I was hooked early on games like SimCity and Civilization because they dealt with broader concepts than watching people go about their simulated lives. I simulate life on a regular basis.

Conan did have a mundane childhood (growing up in a village, learning to be a valuable part of society, etc.) until that critical event when his village and family were slaughtered and he was taken as a slave. Who knows what would have happened if Thulsa Doom had skipped his village?

Your comment on the other entry about the odd notion of a computer game being a “roleplaying game” drives your point home. It *is* the same as the gap between any traditional card game vs. Magic. Apples & oranges. Some aspects are the same, but for the most part they’re miles apart.

I think that’s my biggest worry these days. If someone’s been playing computer games and joins a traditional gaming group, they may (at some level) think they’re functionally equivalent. The differences far outweigh the similarities in my book.