Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ken]

After a good deal of interaction with fellow EVE RPers here and in the game itself over the last (almost) 2 years, I'm coming to the conclusion that two rather distinct views on the nature of capsuleers in New Eden prevail in the community.  I would like to elaborate briefly on how I see these two philosophies and ask for your input and thoughts.

I'll refer to these two different viewpoints as the "World within a Box" and the "Box within a World" or "open" and "insular" respectively.  They can be summarized:

World within a Box (open)
o New Eden is the fictional setting of the video game EVE Online
o New Eden, as a setting, suffuses but also exists apart from EVE
o We have direct access to and can change a portion of New Eden via EVE
o EVE is one of several valid windows into New Eden, among which are also included chronicles, novels, and fan fiction
o Although produced only by CCP, New Eden canon is malleable, imperfect, and open to interpretation and expansion
o Players should be free to play around within New Eden just as they play in EVE

Box within a World (insular)
o EVE Online is a video game set in New Eden
o EVE is presently the only completely valid window into New Eden, although chronicles and novels provide insight and detail
o Something that cannot be observed or demonstrated in EVE has little bearing for players or characters
o The only way for us to affect what is "true" in New Eden is via EVE
o CCP have ultimately priority in matters of New Eden canon and we do not have a right to expand on it as we see fit
o Players should not make assumptions about New Eden beyond what they are shown in the game

I think these two viewpoints, if they even really exist, lead to two rather different play styles.  The open viewpoint leads roleplayers toward the drama goal in the Threefold Model of roleplaying game theory.  Thus, the open-viewed RPer is more "concerned with the narrative qualities of the game, such as story, nuances of meaning, exploration of themes, etc. [and] does not imply following a preset story, but an eagerness to achieve good or well plotted stories and meaning in the unfolding events."  On the other hand, the insular viewpoint leads roleplayers toward the simulation goal.  Thus, an insular-viewed RPer "is concerned with the internal consistency of events that unfold in the gameworld, and ensuring that they are only caused by in-game factors - that is, eliminating metagame concerns (such as drama...)."

Applying these interpretations to the specific case of EVE and New Eden, I think we arrive at a state wherein players of the open-view prefer to explore more esoteric or "fuzzier" forms of roleplay, such as exploring and building interaction based on material found in chronicles, novels, and fan fiction, while players with an insular-view prefer to develop their RP primarily among other capsuleers and (while appreciating the backstory no less than any others) limiting it to what they can achieve measurably within the game.

Is this assessment valid based on your own observations?  Can these two styles not only co-exist (as they obviously do), but cooperate?  If so, are there only certain conditions under which that is possible?  What are your thoughts?

[Esna Pitoojee]

Definitely, definitely accurate.

[Ulphus]

Is this assessment valid based on your own observations?  Can these two styles not only co-exist (as they obviously do), but cooperate?  If so, are there only certain conditions under which that is possible?  What are your thoughts?

I think there is probably a significant number of people who fit somewhere between these two viewpoints.

I for one would say that I lean towards World Within a Box (open) but I expect that for many things (and I probably have a different list from other people) the Game is the arbiter. For instance, the game says that it is possible to build a starship from minerals within a certain amount of time, hours for a cruiser. Claiming in fan fiction that it takes weeks to build the same cruiser for story purposes would make me twitch in uncomfortable ways.

Also, I agree that New Eden Canon is malleable, imperfect and open to interpretation. Heck, if the real world can have people arguing seriously over some of the silly things people argue over; even matters determinable as fact or not; then I see no reason to believe that any account that is moderated by a person, or a persons interpretation of data, can be considered unarguable.

And now comes the confession. I'm not a drama fan. I hold more to the simulationist model, with a bit of gamist thrown in. If I were designing Eve-The-Universe, I would take into account what would make sense (i.e. simulating an internally consistent world) but at the same time it's a game that has to be fun, or people won't play it. For some people, the fun is the stories they come up with.

I RP for the everyday interaction between people, and the unforseen things that can happen from that. I don't really value well-plotted stories or meaning in my RP over internal consistency to the world. This is occasionally a problem in F2F RP when playing with people who value stories over everything else. Most of my favourite stories are told in retrospect, making sense of the vagaries of misunderstandings and the dice, reactions and plans. Much as stories are told about events in the real world.

(As an aside, I have overheard people telling stories about real-world events I was involved in, and getting the details wrong yet producing a better story, and thought that was very cool in a mythmaking sort of way, so didn't try to correct them. Some of those stories have happened within ten minutes of the real event, some were 20 years after)

In short, I'm not convinced that your classification of people's viewpoints and actions is valid, so I'm not sure that your question makes much sense. For me personally, it doesn't feel like I fit into your boxes, nor do many of the people I RP with. I'm not sure how much contact I've had with RPers who strongly hold to the "Box within a world" model since I recognise it only at a distance, and usually espoused as part of an argument against things that they don't like; yet the simulationist stance (of varying strength of will) is something I recognise a lot in the people I play with.

[Ken]

An extremely thoughtful reply.  Thank you, Ulphus.  I considered after posting that many people would fall somewhere between the two mindsets, embracing elements of each in their own play.  Players following a syncretism of two are probably much more common than those who fit neatly into either.

[GoGo Yubari]

Quick reply. I think you're definitely onto something. I'm not sure your stated variables are all correct though or the right, relevant ones. But definitely onto something.

I do think one key issue is that for many players the simulationism in Eve Online is very important. But I think even more important is the question of and disagreement about what exactly are we simulating? The story/game/myguy needs to be consistent, but consistent with what exactly?

Is Eve a cartoony scifi world? Is Eve a pulpy space opera? Is it hard scifi? All of those have different setting assumptions and expectations. I think we have a bunch of simulationists in the game wanting to explore (in the simulationist sense) the game world, but there is no concrete agreement on what exactly is being explored. This isn't only interesting to the hardcore simulationist, even though it's probably the key question for them. But the question is relevant to any roleplayer for whom exploration of the setting is a core part of the experience.

[Saede Riordan]

Definitely open for me, and I see this as actually being a major source of conflict who consider it to be closed. It really splits the RP community into two, insular camps, and though they overlap with each other, they don't really interact beyond polite occasional conversation.

[Silas Vitalia]

I think some of the conflict and consternation arises from those of us who have been around for quite a few years, especially regarding the open box and how we can (or at least used to) effect it.

In the "old days" many of us felt CCP worked with the RPers in more of a 'partnership.' 

They come up with great story-arcs, and got us onboard to participate and shape outcomes on a regular basis.  What you did often mattered, at least within the confines of that particular event. It was reflected via CCP and you would often see results in the main login news page.  Older corps like PIE, etc have a veritable catalogue of linkable EVE news that they participated in.

They even let us, the players, compete for the Royal Heirs to determine the next emperor of Amarr. Do any of you all imagine CCP trying to do anything like that these days?

Sometimes the stories were grand and important, often times they were brief and not important to the overall 'main' story, but were amazing for the players to be a part of Eve history.

I feel like, therefore, the longer you have been playing the game the more you might feel that you can have an influence/how malleable the fiction is. 

It seems to me only a recent thing in the last few years where CCP have put the story on a railroad track that cannot and willnot deviate no matter what we do, which is a shame.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Just because these are two stated versions of RP views on something doesn't mean we have to fall specifically in those 2 categories. In fact, I don't think we even find fall on any kind of "sliding scale" between these two endpoints - far more likely we "pick and choose" different views with regards to different topics.

For instance, if a Chronicle says that "Jita 4-4 is, in fact, one of the most populated single locations in the cluster", I would take the expansive view and say that no, in fact, it is not - a planet is infinitely larger than a station and even assuming an incredibly dense station population, there's no way you could match the population of an entire planet inside the confines of a station.

On the other hand, if a chronicle states that the Wolf was one of the core ships of the Minmatar rebellion, I'm going to call them out on it and take the limited viewpoint, since both in-game mechanics and existing PF state the Wolf was not introduced until some time after the game was launched.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I happen to be one of those people that recognizes that the EVE universe is incomplete and subject to personal interpretation in the areas untouched by the company...within reason. And while I recognize the 'within reason' part is ambiguous, the limitation lies in your boundary of believability and the impact it has on the world. When your creative inventions impact another player's creative boundaries, the less likely others are to accept your story.

Saying you were President of the Federation is a concrete stance with little ambiguity; you either accept they were president at one point or deny it altogether. If you say you were an advisor to a District Judge in the Federation prior to being a pilot, the ambiguity exists to such a degree that numerous individuals could make that claim and still not-contradict one another. Adding that 'out' is, in my opinion, a polite gesture that invites interaction. Telling people what you are, and essentially forcing your position on others will inevitably end poorly, like most Top ranking generals of super fleets that destroy entire planets and are really Jovians, etc.

One of the main reasons I generally refrain from discussions about PF on this board is that, in my opinion, while people generally present their viewpoints I feel the intent is to prove which one is more right than the other. The discussion ceases to be about open or shared discussion on the matter, and more about who's ideas are best and more believable, and as someone who likes the ambiguity of the world and the opportunity to create new ideas and concepts, this is a very limiting position that doesn't help a whole lot.

However, there are certain aspects of EVE that players sometimes try to develop that I also scratch my head about. There's a certain disparity between what we can impact, the background that impacts our characters, and the background that really has very little to do with capsuleers in general. As a roleplayer, I'm concerned about the aspect of New Eden that impacts my character in the present, and not the population of Intaki, or whether the environment of Luminaire is subtropical. There's a certain obsession (or a need) to know every minutia/morsel, no matter how trivial about the universe that I just can't relate to. It might be because often times that knowledge is only used to prove other people wrong, but who knows...

[Lyn Farel]

I agree with Kaleigh, Esna and Ulphus on the scales of grey between the 2 concepts (isular and open). It is good to be in between. Being only in one of the extremes is only a source for extremism and OOC drama.

Now I find this threefold theory a little dumb on something. I like storytelling and it is one of my hobbies, even if I am not a GM on a tabletop roleplaying game (actually i have never played any, just RP and GM experience on MMOs and forums). Scenario is one of the things I enjoy the most and I am a bit puzzled to read that they make a split between situationism and drama. A story only focused on drama and not caring much about the credibility and coherence of its universe is not a good story. You will lose the interest of everyone living/reading/watching this story if the universe, the action, the characters, are not believable. Both go together.

Then we can also oppose game and story, it would already make a little more sense, but again, I am one of these people that think the story can serve the game and vice versa (not always though).

[Ken]

Very thoughtful responses here so far.  Thanks to each of you for sharing your perspectives.

Now I find this threefold theory a little dumb on something.

I may have been too polarizing with the vocabulary in my original post.  I don't think the Threefold Model suggests that the three goals it describes are mutually exclusive, but rather that one or another is likely to prevail at any particular time or in any particular setting/group.  Still, it is certainly an imperfect model for many situations, but it is at least a model.

[GoGo Yubari]

Very thoughtful responses here so far.  Thanks to each of you for sharing your perspectives.

Now I find this threefold theory a little dumb on something.

I may have been too polarizing with the vocabulary in my original post.  I don't think the Threefold Model suggests that the three goals it describes are mutually exclusive, but rather that one or another is likely to prevail at any particular time or in any particular setting/group.  Still, it is certainly an imperfect model for many situations, but it is at least a model.

The Threefold Model definitely doesn't say a single player can't exhibit behavior of all types. It is concerned with player decisions in a single instance of play. Ie. to give a clunky and simple example, if I move my model on the grid one square back that dude with the sniper can't hit me (Gamist creative agenda), even if my character probably doesn't even see him (vs. Simulationist creative agenda). At some other point of time, I can make a different choice. Certainly some players favor certain modes, but this is mostly a game design or diagnostic tool and not a way to classify and/or judge players. If pushed too far to become the latter, the model becomes far less useful - even harmful.

[Ken]

this is mostly a game design or diagnostic tool and not a way to classify and/or judge players. If pushed too far to become the latter, the model becomes far less useful - even harmful.

For the records, it isn't my intent to classify or judge players, but rather to draw connections between what I've observed and how those observations fit within various schema in regards to styles of roleplay in EVE.  I haven't and won't take a stance that one particular style is objectively right or wrong.

[Louella Dougans]

I find your descriptions of "open" and "insular" to colour the discussion.

As are other people's use of "open" and "closed", to insinuate things.


I only refer to Scriptures that CCP have published, and interpret them to try and support points that I make.

Other people make things up to support whatever point they are intending to make. I am uneasy about that.

[Casiella]

Louella, do you have other words you feel would be more appropriate (less biased) and still convey the essential idea?