Why do we play Civilization?

I love history, moreso, alternate histories. I like to think that when I am playing that history could play out, or could have played out just like it does in the game.

I've noticed by some comments here, and more so by comments in the rest of the forums that a lot of people role play.

Of the people that role play, do you play other RPGs in either a computer based or social setting (D&D, tabletop strategy games with friends - some game that you play with others that has an RPG component)?

How does Civ compare as a role playing experience to those other games? Is role playing more effective in a SP or MP setting?

For those that do not role play, how do you approach diplomacy? Civ requires a certain suspension of disbelief, much like television does. Does that suspension of disbelief carry over into diplomacy? Do you find yourself cursing out Kathy when she backstabs you? Or is diplomacy a simple manipulation of game mechanics for you?

I have never played any of the civ games as an rpg. I have always played as me against the AI, kinda like playing chess against the computer. Yes, I agree, a certain amount of suspension is required, after all, it is still just a game. But, yes, I do sometimes go, "What the (expeltive) just happened?" And when I get the "We just dont like you enough.", it makes me a little sad. Afterall, I am a nice guy, "just dont make me mad, you wouldnt like me when I get mad."-Hulk.

While I do enjoy a good RPG, for me my enjoyment of civ comes from exploration, tactics, strategies and problem solving. If other players experience civ4 as a RPG, good for them. We each attach ourselves to this game in different ways. But for me personally, I would feel disconnected from the game playing it as a RPG.

Lemon Merchant said:

I've noticed by some comments here, and more so by comments in the rest of the forums that a lot of people role play.

Of the people that role play, do you play other RPGs in either a computer based or social setting (D&D, tabletop strategy games with friends - some game that you play with others that has an RPG component)?

How does Civ compare as a role playing experience to those other games? Is role playing more effective in a SP or MP setting?

For those that do not role play, how do you approach diplomacy? Civ requires a certain suspension of disbelief, much like television does. Does that suspension of disbelief carry over into diplomacy? Do you find yourself cursing out Kathy when she backstabs you? Or is diplomacy a simple manipulation of game mechanics for you?

Click to expand...

Yes !! Actually I always roleplay I'm the Boss ! A numero Uno !, a GODFATHER , Taxi Driver !! ALIENS, JAWS !!, ..... sorry What I was talking about ? Who are You ?

Lemon Merchant said:

I've noticed by some comments here, and more so by comments in the rest of the forums that a lot of people role play.

Of the people that role play, do you play other RPGs in either a computer based or social setting (D&D, tabletop strategy games with friends - some game that you play with others that has an RPG component)?

How does Civ compare as a role playing experience to those other games? Is role playing more effective in a SP or MP setting?

For those that do not role play, how do you approach diplomacy? Civ requires a certain suspension of disbelief, much like television does. Does that suspension of disbelief carry over into diplomacy? Do you find yourself cursing out Kathy when she backstabs you? Or is diplomacy a simple manipulation of game mechanics for you?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call swearing at the 'opposition' role-playing necessarily. I swear at my AI opponent playing chess too, it doesn't mean I'm trying to see things from the viewpoint of the rook I just lost.

I do play plenty of RPGs. There are enough of them that I don't look for that from Civ at all. I have played TW games as an RPG (all battles that don't involve 'my guy' get auto-resolved) but that was more to increase difficulty than anything else.

That said, 'my Civ' generally does operate with much more of a moral compass than is really 'optimal', so some people would possibly call that role-playing. I want my Civ to 'win', but I want it to do so in a way I can feel good about.

Lemon Merchant said:

I've noticed by some comments here, and more so by comments in the rest of the forums that a lot of people role play.

Of the people that role play, do you play other RPGs in either a computer based or social setting (D&D, tabletop strategy games with friends - some game that you play with others that has an RPG component)?

How does Civ compare as a role playing experience to those other games? Is role playing more effective in a SP or MP setting?

For those that do not role play, how do you approach diplomacy? Civ requires a certain suspension of disbelief, much like television does. Does that suspension of disbelief carry over into diplomacy? Do you find yourself cursing out Kathy when she backstabs you? Or is diplomacy a simple manipulation of game mechanics for you?

Click to expand...

It's been a while since I played. I do have roleplaying tendencies. Hannibal has to attach to an elephant, Mago to Numidian cavalry, etc. Likewise, when I'm playing as Napoleon, he has to attach to artillery, Marshall Murat has to be a light cavalryman, so he has to take flanking promotions rather than combat, etc. My games probably resemble RFC, except that I play other mods.

It carries over into diplomacy , too. Rome or England would be treated with hostility, and I would launch a major offensive against them in the appropriate year.

Lemon Merchant said:

I've noticed by some comments here, and more so by comments in the rest of the forums that a lot of people role play.

Click to expand...

I think this was Sid Meier's intention when he created Civ: to put the player in the position of a ruler of a nation. So role playing was and is integral part of the experience form the very beginning - whether pepole do it on purpose or not, whether people are aware of it or not. You can read whatever story or strategy discussion you want - whenever people talk about "Lizzy" or "Monty" they are not talking about life- and soulless AI they try to beat in a game of computer-chess, they are talking about (silly, stupid, annoying, cunning, whatever) characters they meet and have to deal with. And this - at least for me - is also one of the best and most successful features of Civ IV: the fact that the game designers (at least to some extend) succeded to created vivid and believeable characters growing somewhat beyond their coded AI existense. All this for me goes under "role playing", although it's maybe not exactly the same as people do when they play RPG.

Lemon Merchant said:

I've noticed by some comments here, and more so by comments in the rest of the forums that a lot of people role play.

Of the people that role play, do you play other RPGs in either a computer based or social setting (D&D, tabletop strategy games with friends - some game that you play with others that has an RPG component)?

How does Civ compare as a role playing experience to those other games? Is role playing more effective in a SP or MP setting?

For those that do not role play, how do you approach diplomacy? Civ requires a certain suspension of disbelief, much like television does. Does that suspension of disbelief carry over into diplomacy? Do you find yourself cursing out Kathy when she backstabs you? Or is diplomacy a simple manipulation of game mechanics for you?

Click to expand...

I used to play D&D socially. Now that I'm (mostly) grown up, there's no time. Civ4 is something I can do when I have free time, without having to worry about others' schedules.

D&D was a lot more fun, as a social and roleplaying experience. However, Civ is usually more of a mental challenge, and it's a lot more me-centric. When playing a RPG with others you are sharing the DM's time with how many other players there are. That can lead to some players getting bored/distracted.

As for roleplaying in Civ... I like to name favourite units, and I get attached to certain cities, trying to perfect them. I'll have some AIs I have an irrational fondness for because they helped me, or because they're perfect patsies. But I don't see them as people per se.

Lemon Merchant said:

For those that do not role play, how do you approach diplomacy? Civ requires a certain suspension of disbelief, much like television does. Does that suspension of disbelief carry over into diplomacy? Do you find yourself cursing out Kathy when she backstabs you? Or is diplomacy a simple manipulation of game mechanics for you?

Click to expand...

I do see the leaders as individual characters as they are consistent in their own behavior, differ from the behavior of the others, and therefore have some sense of in-game identity. This means that I do curse the leaders and not the code behind them when they betray me. However, I curse the game and not the opposing unit when I lose a 98% battle and I curse the game and not a leader if I'm narrowly beaten to a wonder. If the AI steals a city spot or founds a city right next to me, however, I blame the leader and not the game as it feels much more personal, why are you stealing my territory, you can see I'm here too! I thought you liked me!

Tech Trading contributes to the feeling of dealing with a cast of characters, as one is generous and the other stingy. Diplomatic Victory votes are pure coded math, each leader requires the same number of diplomatic modifiers to get them to vote for you, it doesn't feel quirky like dealing with individuals does.

I guess my answer is that I approach each aspect of the game differently depending on how clearly the action is directed at me, and how much variation I can see in the decision making process of the AI. Are they acting as individuals and are they acting towards me as an individual?