[Priapist]

I'll take this opportunity to introduce Priapist aka Section8 aka Gareth Davies properly: Fallout: Tactics' artist/designer, instructor at The Academy of Interactive Entertainment; currently working on Synaesthesia, a graphic novel styled survival horror RPG. Other notable articles:

Treatise on Combat to Pink Floyd - a thorough analysis of different combat modes. Highly recommended.

Synaesthesia character system: Stats, Skills, Skill Trees. - Vince

* * *

Where I End And You Begin

There's been a lot of talk in recent time, along with a lot of new trends emerging in the ever-changing genre that is the Computer Role Playing Game (CRPG), and for better or worse, the genre seems to moving toward a model where the player is given more direct control over their alter ego. However, I don't think such changes are giving enough thought to just how important the Player->Player Character proxy is, and risk damaging one of the great strengths of the genre. So let's explore some concepts.

From Me, To You

In any game, there exists some divide between the human being sitting at a monitor (or on a lounge in front of a TV for that matter) and the entities in the gameworld itself. The general concept is the Human Machine Interface (HMI) - the bridge between the user and the system - and is a crucial consideration for any game. For instance, in a racing game, it's ideal if the HMI is all-but transparent. An analogue steering wheel with analogue pedals goes a long way toward providing an accurate facsimile of actual car control, especially if the steering wheel also provides output in the form of force feedback or similar. However, most games, RPGs in particular, put the player in control of far more complex entities than a motor vehicle.

And herein lies a crucial design decision - direct and immediate control in real-time, or some means of indirect control. In the case of the former, the range of actions a player can perform is limited by the complexity and efficiency of the HMI. In the case of the latter, the range of actions is theoretically unlimited, but realistically capped at whatever breadth or depth the player is willing or able to deal with. Of course, if you for some reason decide you want both, letting players opt for one or the other, then prepare to be underwhelmed. The complexity that makes for a satisfying game with indirect control stands diametrically opposed to the efficiency of direct control, so at best, you've got one control method that is satisfying and enjoyable, and another that isn't. At worst, you've got two control methods that are both inherently flawed by the presence of the other.

So think very carefully about that choice, and in doing so, think very carefully about the strengths of RPGs. Depth and breadth of options, or immediate control? Let's depart briefly to consider RPGs for a moment.

((Note: For the sake of simplicity, this article makes the assumption direct control plays out in real time, while indirect control makes concessions for the player to control the pacing. There are obviously exceptions.))

Interlude

I'm going to end the thirty-odd years of bickering about what constitutes an CRPG once and for all, because like B.A. Baracus in The A-Team: BA Lends A Hand in the Race For The Formula, I'm gonna tell you where it's at - A CRPG is a game where the primary input is a player focus on developing and defining a character both functionally and in narrative context, while the primary output is a gameworld response and challenge to the player character's choices and actions. Disagree? Take it outside.

There's a couple of things to take away from that simple definition. Most importantly, it's not about you. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Now that's not particularly unique, since most games put you in control of somebody or something that isn't yourself. However, the great strength and focal point of CRPGs is that the game is primarily concerned with responding to a range of alter egos.

Another interesting point to take away is the lack of any formal exclusion of gameplay modes. Does this mean you could have a chess RPG? A first person shooter RPG? An erotic interactive fiction RPG? Of course, but there's a general rule to apply here. What is the primary player focus? Playing chess, or defining and developing a character who plays chess? Shooting things, or defining and developing a character who shoots things? Just about any game you care to name has aspects that someone would willingly label "RPG elements", but you have to draw the line somewhere, and rather than the arbitrary - "if it has this, this, and this, it's an RPG" - it's so much less of a headache to simply evaluate the primary focus of the player.

Games Without Frontiers

So after that brief interlude, let's get back on track a bit. CRPGs are indeed games without frontiers. The genre boundary is a tatty bit of elastic that either expands or breaks. In any case it's barely worth discussion, and it's better to just say a CRPG can be pretty much anything. But that doesn't really give a definitive answer that excludes direct or indirect control from CRPGs.

However, we can think about how to best serve the needs of defining and developing a character. It seems pretty obvious. Giving the player agency to pick and choose from a great breadth and/or depth of options in all aspects greatly favours indirect control and non real-time systems. But that's not enough. After all, we're not talking about boundless virtual worlds, we're talking about games. And games require challenge elements. Ideally an integral part of this challenge should be having to make unclear and unfavourable choices under duress, but can a game stand on this merit alone? More often than not, there needs to be another layer providing challenge to the player.

So here we have another divisive aspect of the Player->Player Character proxy - the need to satisfy the gamist urges of the player in addition to facilitating and responding to character development. It can't be entirely separated from the HMI, so let's look at how it all intertwines.

We're In This Together

To rationalise briefly before going any further: the player has two "responsibilities" to the character - to define and develop, and to overcome any challenges facing them, with the CRPG "sweet spot" being when those two responsibilities amount to the same thing. In order to fulfill those responsibilities, the player must control the character either directly or indirectly through the HMI. The primary goal of a CRPG developer should be to keep the player in that sweet spot, and maximise the efficiency of the HMI with direct relation to it. Make sense?

The concept of sweet spot is pretty straight-forward - the challenge the player must face is also character defining - for instance, a bad guy telling the player to kill one of their friends, or if they refuse, the bad guy will kill all of their friends. The player "wins" the challenge by sparing the lives of all but one of their friends, but in doing so enacts a dramatic event. Needless to say, it would be difficult if not impossible to structure an entire game around this sort of play. So we get peripheral "filler" gameplay, outside of that sweet spot, but ideally overlapping it in various degrees through dynamic shifts or cumulative gameworld effects. Anything that doesn't overlap the sweet spot in any way should be considered the worst kind of filler and avoided like the plague.

So with that in mind, let's consider direct and indirect control and the challenges they provide. Firstly indirect control, which relies on presenting the player with situations that require depth of thought to evaluate multiple agents with a large range of actions and interactions. With few agents and only a small array of options, the outcomes become more predictable, which is undesirable if it's not broken up with a certain element of chaos. The indirect nature also interacts well with the concept of character skills/stats through a simple chain of Player Orders Action->Player Character Attempts Action->Outcome. More on that later.

When it comes to direct control, timing and efficiency are paramount. The simplest of challenges only requires a timely reaction from the player, though a significant degree of complexity can be made workable as long as the HMI remains effective. However, there is still a limitation, and decision making is always performed with time pressure. To that end, any role-playing choices become improvised rather than considered. The direct nature of the input also makes it more difficult adequately account for player character skill when faced with the higher degree of control the player has over outcomes.

So really, we're looking at different and largely incomparable gameplay. There's nothing to say a well-considered, player-paced characterisation is superior or more enjoyable than an "on-the-spot" improv style of characterisation, and the same can be said of the peripheral gameplay. And clearly, all players will have their preferences, for deep considered play versus seat-of-your-pants quick-wittedness.

No Awareness

However, we havent' yet accounted for one of the crucial differences between the two modes. Consider the player's awareness of the interface and systems - In an indirect system, it's expected that the player is well-informed with regard to the underlying systems, as well as using a much wider range of interactions through a typically cursor driven interface. The HMI still needs to be efficient, but hiding or obscuring the interface is not really a consideration for indirect control.

One of the main goals when designing a direct control system is minimising user interface elements, as well as providing a natural method of control that the player will adapt to without a need for awareness. To throw back to racing games (or Doom for that matter) you end up with a situation where the player ceases to be aware of the interface, and feels like they're actually part of what the screen is showing them. It's the state that used to be called immersion before the PR monkeys forever tainted it with their far-flung faeces.

I'm going to dodge the topic of immersion for the time being though, but consider this - when the player descends (or ascends) into a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious, then they're no longer capable of playing a role other than themselves, or a constrained context they've defined for themselves. This particular kind of immersion, where the player has no awareness of the HMI is ideal for simulations such as the Falcon or Gran Turismo series, but within a CRPG doesn't really allow the character to do anything more than react. To this end, as long as the game also provides ways for the player to consciously define a context for their reactions, the player will most often remain in-character, without really developing their character.

For instance, if I define myself as a nimble swordsman, then my reactions ought to mirror this choice by virtue of this being the most effective course of action during fast-paced and reactive combat. As long as there is a conscious control over restrictive character faculties outside of reactive immersion, then it's unlikely the player will step beyond the bounds of their character. Of course, not all direct control designs work toward completely obfuscating the HMI, but it is one of the great advantages of the mode, and coupled with a layer of conscious character definition, can provide a different type of game altogether.

Reprise

So let's step back for a second. Indirect control is starting to look like a superior method of achieving our means. There are no real limitations other than the subjective appeal among different game preferences. It effectively facilitates character development, and helps to keep peripheral gameplay closer to that "sweet spot". Direct control on the other hand, has lots of caveats and limitations to it. It's still very much possible for a strong role-playing game to feature direct control elements, but by its nature, we're moving away from the core principles.

Breakin' All The Rules

There's one more vital comparison we need to make though before we start jumping to conclusions. It's something we've already touched upon, and that's the interplay between the skills of the player, and the skills of the character. A little while ago, a good friend's wife asked me what playing Dungeons & Dragons involved. Long story short, it turns out that it's basically improv without an audience or time pressure, and a lot of rules. Every time anyone wants to attempt something, it's basically subject to a referee. Who is incidentally trying to kill you. In a fair and impartial manner.

But I digress. Point is, without underlying rules, it's just role-play. The rules and systems are what make it an actual game, and are integral to the challenge of the experience. Now whether this involves rolling dice, dealing cards, or random number generators (RNG) in a CRPG is largely irrelevant. The pertinent bit is that the player never gets to do anything, they're basically relegated to barking orders at their alter ego, who then attempts the action, result pending approval from the arbiting forces of the gameworld.

This basic feature of traditional RPGs is very easily transferred to the computerised medium through indirect control. The player issues orders, and resolution depends on the character's stats/skills and the conditions of the scenario and gameworld. That's not to say it's without flaws though. It becomes difficult to translate much of the needed abstraction of tedious tasks from the P&P medium, and sometimes an indirect system can be burdened by its own complexity. From this comes a tendency to preserve the tedium of repeated actions as tedious non-interactive passages of play.

Not that direct control gets any free rides - there have been plenty of tedious interactive passages of play in such games. And it comes with additional complications. With direct control, the player will always find ways to trump the underlying systems through their own skill as a player - by giving the player direct control over walking/running, you also give them agency to dodge, hide,etc - and at the other end of the spectrum there are players who lack the skill to utilise their character's potential. There's a delicate balancing act at play here, and swinging too far one way or another risks upsetting the core character systems or simply missing the mark with part of the target audience.

In short, it's a lot harder to achieve a decent synergy between player skill and character skill through the use of direct control. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and a game that requires a reasonable degree of dexterity and reaction from the player is certainly not excluded from the CRPG clubhouse. In fact, it's important to have that variety of gameplay.

The End Is The Beginning Is The End

Is there a point to all of this? That's been a lot of rambling, and there's no definite stamp of wrong or right to put on anything. But hopefully there's an awareness of the bigger issues at hand when considering the player->player character proxy. What I didn't touch on in any depth is the player character->player relationship, simply because it's best left up to the player to decide what they want out of it and what they get out of it is hugely varied. And that becomes a discussion point of its own. What do you as players want to get out of your alter ego?

[Vince]

Great article. Very interesting and thoughtful. Also:

It's the state that used to be called immersion before the PR monkeys forever tainted it with their far-flung faeces.

lol

I'm going to dodge the topic of immersion for the time being though, but consider this - when the player descends (or ascends) into a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious, then they're no longer capable of playing a role other than themselves. This particular kind of immersion, where the player has no awareness of the HMI is ideal for simulations such as the Falcon or Gran Turismo series, but completely contrary to the core CRPG concept of an alter ego.

A very interesting point. I've never thought of it this way, but quite possibly you are right.

[Gareth]

I'm going to dodge the topic of immersion for the time being though, but consider this - when the player descends (or ascends) into a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious, then they're no longer capable of playing a role other than themselves. This particular kind of immersion, where the player has no awareness of the HMI is ideal for simulations such as the Falcon or Gran Turismo series, but completely contrary to the core CRPG concept of an alter ego.

Don't really agree with this. You can be immersed in your role as Hamlet in a theatre production to the point where you practically feel like the prince of Denmark, forgetting the stage and your audience, yet you are still able to perform as a role other than yourself. Likewise, you can play and become immersed in any number of physical games where you react in ways contrary to how you would in another context.

Immersion doesn't preclude an awareness of context or the fact that you are acting as someone else, that would be something akin to a dream or hypnotic state.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I usually play as myself anyway.

[Vince]

@ Gareth:

I was going to add "unless the player is an actor who can easily wear a different personality without any mental efforts" to my post.

For example, I'm not religious. Let's say I'm playing a religious character who's guided/blinded by faith. I would have to consider each situation from the point of view of this character, to try to see it through my character's eyes. What would he do? Does option A fit his beliefs and faith? Would my paladin, for example, spare a child who stole some food or treat him like a law breaking criminal? I would spare the child, but would the paladin whose world is black-n-white do the same?

I don't think I would be able to make such decisions instantly, without breaking the immersion. Also, you should keep in mind that the difference between acting and playing a role in a game is that an actor doesn't have to make choices. All choices and decisions are already made. From that point of view, it's easier to get immersed in an adventure game where you usually progress from point A to point B.

[Gareth]

I was going to add "unless the player is an actor who can easily wear a different personality without any mental efforts" to my post.

Most people can play a different role without much difficulty, once they get past the initial awkwardness. This is not the same as playing that role convincingly in front of an audience, certainly, the nuances of gesture, expression and posture are things which take a lot of skill to master, but in games we are talking about "choose the option which most matches my chosen persona of enraged/arrogant/pious/loyal".

You don't have to be a master of mimicing facial expressions for that. Most people can identify such emotions or behaviors in the people around them, can pick out sentences representing those behaviors in a book or play, which is all that is needed to try to replicate those behaviors.

And certainly the state of immersion doesn't represent some sort of trance where a person is unable to evaluate behaviors which match the chosen persona.

I don't think I would be able to make such decisions instantly, without breaking the immersion.

Why? Being immersed doesn't mean the lack of ability to mull options over. And it certainly doesn't imply forgetting that you are a different person from the in-game character.

Also, you should keep in mind that the difference between acting and playing a role in a game is that an actor doesn't have to make choices. All choices and decisions are already made. From that point of view, it's easier to get immersed in an adventure game where you usually progress from point A to point B.

I would say the opposite, in a game where the decisions are made for me it is easier to just go with it without thinking about it. The decisions that immerse me the most are the ones I have to think about, and think about why I decide one way or the other. Adventure games feel more like watching someone else's story.

[galsiah]

The point you're missing here is that Priapist specified "This particular kind of immersion...", where the player reaches "a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious".

And certainly the state of immersion doesn't represent some sort of trance where a person is unable to evaluate behaviors which match the chosen persona.

For this particular kind of immersion (i.e. not what you usually mean by the word), that's exactly what it means. I.e. that "interactions are reactive and not conscious".
For the player to be immersed in this sense and still able to play a character distinct from himself, he effectively needs to be method acting - he can feel that a behaviour is right (i.e. reactive interaction), but he can't consciously evaluate its appropriateness (since that's clearly conscious interaction). That's not impossible, but neither is it straightforward - it'd take a great deal of effort/commitment for most people.

What you mean by immersion clearly isn't reaching "a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious", so the point you're trying to make just isn't relevant here. Certainly the player can feel involved with the game, and play a character not himself easily enough. No-one is disputing that.

The huge problem with the word "immersion" is that it has many different meanings, applications and interpretations, so that people start discussions from incompatible premises. Helpfully, Priapist furnished us with the relevant interpretation for this point - but you seem to have ignored it.

[Gareth]

The point you're missing here is that Priapist specified "This particular kind of immersion...", where the player reaches "a brain state where interactions are reactive and not conscious".

No, I'm not. There are plenty of examples of people being able to act in a reactive manner yet still be able to perform according to an externally imposed context, a set of rules. Since we're talking about games, let's use a video game example. Go play any RPG with action elements from Morrowind to Diablo and get into heavy combat. Now, when the action is fast and furious, do you find yourself unable to act within the role you're playing? Of course not, no matter how reactive your decisions, no matter how immersed you are, no matter how unconscious your awareness of the HMI becomes.

If I'm playing an archer, I react as an archer, dodging and trying to gain distance to fire my bow. If playing a mage I desperately cast spells as the situation calls for, drink potions when the need arises, turning to my weapons as a last resort and I am still more than aware I suck badly with them. Whereas playing a fighter my sword would be the first thing I'd whip out. Not only that, I can load up different characters within minutes of each other and switch play styles almost instantly.

It is of course still you playing the game but it is you playing a role, ie roleplaying a different persona. A person who is good at swordplay, or able to perform magic, or whatever. You react as your alter ego, the context you've taken on.

What you're missing Galsiah is that acting reactively doesn't automatically override the player's understanding of context (which in an RPG is the role you are playing). Which is why when rugby players are tackled they still, most of the time, even though they have a split second to decide and large burly men are jumping on them, manage to remember to pass backwards. Why soccer players remember not to use their hands. Why people who play both soccer and rugby can manage to adhere to those rules when playing each type of game, even though they have learned both contexts, even taking on different roles within the team if necessary, playing different positions. And why I can react in the thick of combat as the type of character I am currently playing.

The idea that just because the game interface is direct enough to the point that you can just forget it somehow negates your ability to role-play, which is what Priapist seems to be implying with this :

This particular kind of immersion, where the player has no awareness of the HMI is ideal for simulations such as the Falcon or Gran Turismo series, but completely contrary to the core CRPG concept of an alter ego.

...sorry, I don't buy that one at all. Simply forgetting about the interface is akin to not having to think about how to throw a ball in rugby. The throwing action may be unconscious but just because you don't have to think about how to do it doesn't mean you will suddenly forget the context you're playing in and throw it forwards.

That type of "reactive response" is also only possible in physical situations, combat or acrobatics or whatever. Deciding on a dialogue option or quest completion path implies decision which implies conscious thought and deliberation (the opposite of reaction) no matter how immersed you are and how much you may be able to ignore the HMI. Which excludes this particular kind of immersion you are talking about Galsiah from applying to 90% of the actual meaningful role-playing.

Which in turn means that the whole "direct HMI design runs contrary to role playing an alter ego" argument is neither accurate nor hugely relevant, given that it doesn't really apply outside of the physical aspect and even within the physical aspect there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting most people can and do react as their alter ego.

It's just another version of "I don't think you can roleplay if the game has action elements" and I disagree with that view, sorry Priapist.

[Priapist]

Go play any RPG with action elements from Morrowind to Diablo and get into heavy combat. Now, when the action is fast and furious, do you find yourself unable to act within the role you're playing? Of course not, no matter how reactive your decisions, no matter how immersed you are, no matter how unconscious your awareness of the HMI becomes. [...]

Okay, so I'd agree that "completely contrary" is too strong because you're mostly right here. If you've consciously defined your character functions outside of this "immersive" play, then by simply playing reactively ought to avoid conflicting with your character. You're using your strengths to succeed:

It is of course still you playing the game but it is you playing a role, ie roleplaying a different persona. A person who is good at swordplay, or able to perform magic, or whatever. You react as your alter ego, the context you've taken on.

However, while it's likely to be mostly in-character, it's hardly character-building. In Diablo, Morrowind, ro any other action RPG you care to name it's not until "the dust settles" that you step back out of that reactive play to consider things that you effectively respond or further develop as a character. And generally the methods of developing your character are indirectly controlled - as you yourself recognise and mention later on.

...sorry, I don't buy that one at all. Simply forgetting about the interface is akin to not having to think about how to throw a ball in rugby. The throwing action may be unconscious but just because you don't have to think about how to do it doesn't mean you will suddenly forget the context you're playing in and throw it forwards.

The thing is, reactively throwing a ball in rugby is less profound than consciously deciding to throw a cut-out pass, a dummy, an inside ball, a chip kick, a grubber, a bomb, a long kick - or to actually link up with your team mates as part of a planned passage of play. Or to be aware of a defender rushing up out of the line and opening up a gap, seeing that the fullback has come up in the line, etc.

The best and most skillful footballers in any code are those with presense of mind, situational awareness and the ability to act under pressure rather than react under pressure. Same goes with RPGing - it's one thing to react within a character context you've previously defined, it's another to consciously act around that same context.

And of course, there's a difference in the gameplay and challenges offered between calculated role-playing and role-play under duress.

Which in turn means that the whole "direct HMI design runs contrary to role playing an alter ego" argument is neither accurate nor hugely relevant, given that it doesn't really apply outside of the physical aspect and even within the physical aspect there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting most people can and do react as their alter ego.

I have to agree with this, and I'll make the necessary edits.

It's just another version of "I don't think you can roleplay if the game has action elements" and I disagree with that view, sorry Priapist.

Not at all what I was trying to suggest. "I don't think you can roleplay during action elements" is more like it, though of course you can react and remain in-character. I also never suggested that action elements have no place in RPGs, and commented to the contrary a couple of times throughout the article.

[galsiah]

[[non-EDIT: I see Priapist has replied, but I've spent too long on this already. Appologies for redundancy etc.]]

to act in a reactive manner yet still be able to perform according to an externally imposed context, a set of rules.

And?? Who said anything about not acting according to externally imposed context?

What you're saying about playing as an archer vs playing as a mage just misses the point. It's obvious that you'll adapt to the context, since it's impossible not to - the player will naturally use the actions which are available/effective for his character. It's a bit of a stretch to call simply using-effective-skills "roleplaying" - it's just not being completely stupid. The roleplaying comes in how effective skills/abilities are used, not in deciding to use them.

Note Priapist's outline of an RPG "a game where the primary input is a player focus on developing and defining a character both functionally and in narrative context". The decision for a mage to use magic does nothing to "develop and define" the mage any further than he's already developed/defined. What develops/defines him is general gameplay how he uses it.

A better parallel would be in switching between personality types, not skill-sets. E.g. playing a sadistic-but-affable mage vs a neurotic-and-serious one. You can't switch between these and maintain a reactive mode of play - either you're not completely in sync with will need to be played consciously.

ie roleplaying a different persona. A person who is good at swordplay, or able to perform magic, or whatever.

I'm pretty sure Priapist isn't talking about a persona as in "person who uses swords" vs "person who uses magic". He's talking about a personality/morality/ethos separate from your own.

Whether you use a sword or spells isn't relevant - or rather it's just a trivially simple, well-defined context, that's easy to adapt into a reactive play-style; as opposed to the complex, vaguely-defined context of an assumed personality/morality/ethos....

...sorry, I don't buy that one at all. Simply forgetting about the interface is akin to not having to think about how to throw a ball in rugby. The throwing action may be unconscious but just because you don't have to think about how to do it doesn't mean you will suddenly forget the context you're playing in and throw it forwards.

Sure, but no-one (certainly not myself or Priapist, anyway) is saying that taking such contextual low-level actions is "role-playing" in any significant sense.

Deciding on a dialogue option or quest completion path implies decision which implies conscious thought and deliberation (the opposite of reaction) no matter how immersed you are and how much you may be able to ignore the HMI.

Naturally - but only because you've chosen to use the word "decide" in the first place. Picking a dialogue option doesn't need to be a real "decision", any more than deciding when to swing a sword.

As an example, take the case where there's only one available dialogue option which fits your character. This isn't a "decision" in any significant sense, since there's only one reasonable path given the context (i.e. the assumed personality). It's entirely possible to go through such situations without an externally conscious evaluation - even for situations where more than one option is a possibility - you simply pick the option that feels right.
The same goes for quest completion path "decisions" - sometimes the "decision" will be made simply by doing what comes naturally for the character.

Of course that won't apply in all cases - some choices will be more conscious deliberative decisions than gut-feeling snap decisions. In such cases it's not going to be an entirely reactive process.

Which excludes this particular kind of immersion you are talking about Galsiah from applying to 90% of the actual meaningful role-playing.

Perhaps - perhaps 100% in some sense. Yet it applies to any situation where the player only has to act in character, and not to think in character.

Is every conversational response the result of high-level conscious deliberation? Hardly. Many remarks and reactions are largely reflex based. Initial approaches to most problem-solving situations are going to be reflexive (in the sense of "which tool to use" decisions, rather than "how I use this tool" ones).

Which in turn means that the whole "direct HMI design runs contrary to role playing an alter ego" argument is neither accurate nor hugely relevant...

I think it's both accurate and relevant, but I'm not sure it's quite as significant as Priapist seems to imply.
To play an alter-ego, a player needs to share that alter-ego's reflexes in reflexive situations. In low-level physical play, that's usually pretty simple, since the player and alter-ego will usually be concerned only with effectiveness. While that probably means such low-level situations are largely roleplaying-free, that needn't be much of an issue - it's not as though many indirect-control games achieve rich roleplaying at this level.
In dialogue situations, it's not too much of a problem in some cases - often a certain reply will simply seem right for a given character. In other cases, it'll be a more deliberative process, which breaks that reactive-play level of immersion.

However, since roleplaying is being viewed here as "defining and developing" a character, these reflexive situations aren't really where it's at - to the extent that they're entirely reflexive, they probably do neither. Definition and development is inevitably going to happen mostly on a conscious level.

It's not as though a direct control mechanism rules out that kind of conscious deliberation though. All it means is that there will necessarily be switches in and out of that kind of mind state. What matters most is the impact of reflexive sections and transitions on the more deliberative sections. An indirect control system provides a consistent level of abstraction, so that the feel of things will be stable in these terms.

Perhaps what's important is that the player not be allowed to lose the idea of alter-ego during the reflexive phases - i.e. that there be a large supply of low-level "decisions" which aren't simply a matter of efficiency, but rather of style/ethos/morality/goal. If efficiency is all that matters, there's no need for the player to maintain any sense of alter-ego, and whether he's a mage/swordsman/archer, he's effectively just playing himself. If there is frequently a choice between various actions of similar (expected) efficiency, some of which say something about a character's ethos, it's much simpler to maintain the idea of an alter-ego - even where these actions are taken automatically at the low level.

To take an example from my own experience that only half fits for quite a few reasons, consider Deus Ex. In one playthrough (the second, I believe), I decided that I'd do all I could not to harm the mostly-innocent (NSF, cops, security people...). This had disappointingly few high-level implications, but we'll overlook that for now. The point here is that it influenced a huge range of low-level actions by furnishing them with a very broad-brushstrokes aspect of personality. I'd act not to harm the innocent without needing to snap out of a reflexive playstyle, because it was an entirely clear part of my alter-ego's ethos. Although I wasn't making conscious decisions in each case, this constantly reinforced the idea that I was playing a character distinct from myself (without my needing to think in these terms at the time).
Then, when it came time to snap out of the stealth/combat sections, and into a bit of slightly-more-roleplaying-ish dialogue/decision-making, the transition was much less jarring. I'd been following some significant (if very simple) reflexes which were my character's, and not my own, so the idea of an alter-ego had never really left.

Of course this could be done in a much more effective/nuanced manner than a simple kill-people / save-people divide. In order to maintain the idea of a specific alter-ego it'd have to be: all the Deus Ex situation gave me was the idea that I was playing as an alter-ego (since there were significant differences in ethos); it didn't really reinforce the idea of any specific/nuanced character - only the central point that it wasn't me.

Not too many character-defining-reflex-choices spring to mind just at the moment, but I'm sure they're out there.


Also, I'm not sure that I'd agree with Priapist's that non-awareness of the HMI is "completely contrary to the core CRPG concept of an alter ego". What's important is that the alter-ego isn't lost when the clear mechanism of external control disappears. Having clear external control is certainly one way to help maintain the concept of an alter-ego, but I doubt it's the only way.
If non-awareness of HMI is about an "I'm there" feeling, I'd say it's about the "there", not the "I". I don't see the pursuit of thereness as contradicting the idea of an alter-ego - it simply doesn't reinforce it.

I think it's arguable that the detachment of an indirect system is undesirable too - since the aim in this area is to promote the idea of a distinct alter-ego, but not one who's entirely detached from the player. With direct control you have a much clearer connection, while running the risk of losing alter-ego definition (if nothing is done to prevent this); with indirect control you have a much clearer natural definition, but greater risk that the PC seems little more than a puppet (again, if nothing prevents this, which it probably should).
In either case, it's not necessarily that important, since there are other game elements which can make up for certain deficiencies.

It's just another version of "I don't think you can roleplay if the game has action elements" and I disagree with that view

I don't think that's what's meant, and I think your reaction to that reading of things is clouding your judgement.