|
Games and Stories
The parallels between pen-and-paper RPGs and video games don't end with their simulations, however. Both are games that tell stories, or perhaps more accurately, offer stories that have gameplay. A novel concept, if you take a step back.
Today most gamers take it for granted that games have stories, yet most traditional games -- chess and checkers, tag and hide-and-seek, baseball and basketball -- don't have any story.
They don't have plot, characters, or themes; in fact they barely represent anything at all. Games pose abstract problems or challenges that players are tasked with solving, and they engage the logical left brain more than the artistic right, the body more than the heart.
In contrast, stories depict fictional people, places, and events; they mirror the real world and are fundamentally representational. Readers and viewers act as silent witnesses, powerless over the characters and events depicted but moved by them all the same. Stories appeal more to the right brain than the left, more to the heart than the body.
Given these stark differences -- games as abstract, interactive problem-solving exercises, stories as representational, passive depictions that elicit emotion -- it's quite strange for game and story to be combined into the same experience, but Dungeons & Dragons did exactly that, and with much success.
The key was the simulation: it was both interactive, with goals, obstacles, and rewards for players, and representational, with characters, settings, and events for players to encounter. Moreover, these seemingly disparate game and story elements were often combined; a quest to save the princess from a dungeon, for instance, neatly ties a goal to a character, an obstacle to a setting.
Today the vast majority of video games, from FPSes to platformers, adventure games to open world games, are games that tell a story, and D&D blazed the trail.
Class Struggle (and Cooperation)
As influential as Dungeons & Dragons may have been in the field of story-driven single-player games, that isn't the complete picture; with its system of character classes, D&D has had an impact even on competitive and cooperative multiplayer games.
One example is fighting games, which feature a rock-paper-scissors method of balancing similar to that used in D&D. Fighting games often have quick weak characters and strong slow ones; similarly D&D has agile but frail thieves and hardy but slow fighters. Such differentiation provides balance to fighting games, where no character is vastly better than another in every situation.
Team-based FPSes like Team Fortress 2 and Call of Duty 4 also benefit from class systems. At their core, character classes and the rock-paper-scissors balancing on which they are based embody the opportunity cost of specialization -- the fact that getting really good at one thing comes at the expense of being really good at other things.
For team-based games this is ideal; a player with a soldier-type class, for instance, cannot excel at everything, so must cooperate with teammates -- medics, engineers, and so on -- if he really wants to win.
Games featuring a class system with levels have an additional benefit: they provide a sense of progression and reward as players become more powerful and unlock new abilities. Such progression acts as a carrot-on-a-stick motivation system, where the next reward -- a new perk in Call of Duty 4, for instance -- is always just out of reach.
Note that classes and levels don't even need to be explicit to have these benefits; for instance, BioShock's tonics and plasmids offer players the same opportunities for specialization and progression as other games with more rigid and defined character improvement systems.
|
They need to teach this stuff in game history class so the new generation of developers understand their roots.
I only hope that someday, perhaps in my lifetime, games will be able to reach that same level of interactivity, freedom, choice and accountability, and imagination that D&D offers, allowing those who only ever knew of video games a taste of where it all began in vivid high-definition and surround-sound. *grin*
P.S. No offense, Wizards, but D&D Online doesn't even come close.
Nonetheless, I agree that D&D is at the root of video games, because most video games involve role assumption (not quite the same as RP). The player identifies with one person, and usually but not always has an avatar. That's the difference, not "story".
a) in real life, a bunch of 5-10 year old kids with Card Board armor and helmets...I recall having a "talcum powder" filled staff, one swing and I'd have about 5 kids all powdered up!
b) played it in legos, we used a dice and assigned hitpoints to the body parts, waay before Star Wars Legos
c) created a side scroller version, more dice and pencil
Truly any piece of art or literature that inspires and births more is worth remembrance.
The "Open Worlds" section of the article seems superfluous as it doesn't serve to enforce the main point. All it really says is that those types of games are similar (and ultimately inferior?) to D&D. Again, though, similarity does not imply causality.
I have much respect for Gygax and I still play D&D to this day, but I think it is an serious insult to game developers to tell them that their ideas are all derived from someone else's. Nobody at ID would have ever thought to put the Doom player's face on the screen if D&D hadn't invented the idea of roles in games? Come on...
First, the author said D&D was the influence on MODERN video games. Second, Pac-Man, Asteroids and Tempest all have "stories" even if those stories are at the simplest level ("you're a guy in a space ship who has to blow up asteroids to survive," for example.)
> First, people have been making video games since the 50's. The first video game console came out a year -before- D&D.
Again, the author said D&D was influential in /modern/ video games. And yes, "video games" have been around longer than D&D (as a kid in the 70's I played "Hunt the Wumpus" and other "video games" over a Teletype machine and a modem connecting to a mainframe - some of the first "online" gaming). But D&D has been highly influential for generations now, and one of those influences has been in the video game hobby/industry.
All ideas build on those ideas of the past. We would have no Metallica, for example, were it not for the influence of "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" bands like Venom and Diamondhead, among others. And, ultimately, going back and back logically, we wouldn't have rock and roll were it not for blues and country of the 50's and previous, and going back further we wouldn't have any modern music without the likes of Mozart, Tchaikovsky, et. al.
Same goes with games. Yes, there were historical war games of all kinds before D&D. But Gygax and Arneson were (to my knowledge) the first to combine wargaming with fantasy elements - elves, dwarves, etc - and then add in fantasy "heroes" to the mix, and then eventually spin off the fantasy hero concept into the first version of D&D; this influenced others and so on, so that video games can easily be seen as heavily influenced by their work and the popularity of the D&D concept.
One thing the author failed to mention regarding this topic is that most modern video games borrow the general D&D mechanic for health and other statistics. Doom, Duke Nukem, WoW, and beyond all use a system not at all unlike Hit Points to determine a characters overall health (or death).
As an aside, most modern video games can trace their roots back to a little TI-99 video game called Tunnels of Doom. Therein, the game designer borrowed D&D concepts to create a fantasy "rpg" game that spawned many modern video game concepts. It was perhaps the first to include virtual, 3D environments (you walked down 3D tunnels from one room to another in a virtual dungeon - very much a precursor to games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom), the map screen showing where you've been, and "top down" 3rd person combat (like most modern rpg games).
In short, this article is spot on, bravo.