What is a roleplaying game?

[simon_hibbs]

Maybe we should be talking about Communaly Created, Jointly Created, or Co-Authored Imaginary Space.

Different forms of roleplayign game might then have different forms of shared imaginary space.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Simon,

That construction certainly tends toward my point of view, for whatever that's worth.

As long as we think of imagine-ing, rather than receiving, as long as we thinking of sharing in the two-way sense; and as long we remember all five components (hence including System), then I think SIS does fine as a term, though.

I can't conceive of any term that would not be subject to "I don't get it, that can't be right" interpretation from a person who was unwilling to investigate to that extent.

Best,
Ron

[simon_hibbs]

As long as we think of imagine-ing, rather than receiving, as long as we thinking of sharing in the two-way sense; and as long we remember all five components (hence including System), then I think SIS does fine as a term, though.

It seems to me that this 2-way communication thing is a special component of a subset of roleplaying games, albeit the subset that is most discussed here on The Forge, so rolling it into a general term seems awkward and inelegent IMHO.


Simon Hibbs

[newsalor]

I'm sorry that I can't respond to all of your wonderful replies. I find myself in a situation, where I don't have access to a computer all the time.

I think that the Meilahti Model is very good. It is also nice to notice that the Meilahti Model could be injected strait to the Big Model without trouble. Despite what the authors of Meilahti Model say, the two are very compatible. Too bad that the many people who responded to that thread did understand it and/or bashed it.

Anyway, Big Model tries to describe roleplaying, but it does not include a definition of a roleplaying game. To me this is strange. It would seem to be the most important bit. If we don't know what is it that we are trying to describe with a model, then we don't know very much. It seems to be though that a definition is implied. A fellow who thinks that computer games are roleplaying games, is bound to have problems with the model.

[Sean]

Hi, newsalor -

My two cents on that is that you're putting the cart before the horse. The only way to construct a useful definition IMO is by knowing what you want to describe. The definition doesn't tell you that, it rather (if successful) expresses it in a true and specifying (and perhaps also 'epistemologically useful' - that's a third debated criterion of definiton) manner.

So you get a split between people who say 'well, as long as you understand what's being talked about, who cares about the exact definition?', and people like me who think that the process of trying to arrive at a definition is both cognitively useful and an important part of a serious attempt to understand things. But I don't accuse people who can't define things of not knowing what they're talking about. Really obvious cases are art and mathematics: artists and mathematicians surely know what art and mathematics are much better than those who don't participate in those activities, on the average, yet 95% or more of both groups will contradict themselves and generally utter gibberish when trying to define their own activities.

I'd even grant that a clear understanding of what you're doing is far more important in some vague general sense of 'important' than the ability to conceptualize that activity clearly that comes out in a definition. It doesn't follow from that that the latter is useless or unimportant, however.

Vincent thinks we don't have authority to define a word in common usage. I on the other hand believe that we and they and all speakers of the language do have such authority, so long as we defend our definition in a principled way. If both sides in the argument can muster good reasons on behalf of their choice, then you sometimes reach an impasse which can only be decided by future data or advances in theory which make it clear which definition fits better into the edifice as a whole; but it's not a damning impasse in any sense, since both sides are users of the language and can understand where the other is coming from, provided that they explain themselves and are willing to listen to the explanations of others.

[Silmenume]

Hello Newsalor!

Anyway, Big Model tries to describe roleplaying, but it does not include a definition of a roleplaying game. To me this is strange. It would seem to be the most important bit. If we don't know what is it that we are trying to describe with a model, then we don't know very much. It seems to be though that a definition is implied. A fellow who thinks that computer games are roleplaying games, is bound to have problems with the model.

There is a sound reason why a definitive definition of roleplaying games cannot be made.  It is a very complex and subtle reason, so I will instead point you to two links that can help you.

This is Chris' (clehrich) thread Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!] on RPG's.  Its very involved, but here is a quote from the relevant section - it won't make sense unless you are familiar with the whole theory -

Bell makes this very slick move of making "ritual" in effect a verb: she calls this "ritualization." Ritualization is the process by which a group, culture, or even individual projects some form of practice as somehow different from others. In particular, it is a means by which people reify (make objects out of) practices not inherently distinct from other practices. In short, ritual is not a thing; it doesn't have a different ontological status [status with respect to being or not being a thing] than any other practice. But people treat ritual as though it had a radically different ontological status than other practices. That is, it's the natives who make ritual into a thing; by treating ritual as a thing in scholarship, we simply sign on to local ideology and power structures, and don't actually analyze the world as it is. Furthermore, by then debating the "right" meaning of the term, we perform our own ritualizations! We're not just parroting native ritualization, but doing it ourselves in our own special way.

Essentially he is saying that roleplay is a ritual and rituals can't be defined as things but as processes.

This link is to a full essay on the same basic topic - Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games

I hope this provides some insight.

[simon_hibbs]

Essentially he is saying that roleplay is a ritual and rituals can't be defined as things but as processes.

Funnily enough, I just said a similar thing on another thread - that roleplayign is a method (ok, process) we use to interact with and explore an imaginary space.


Simon Hibbs

[M. J. Young]

Permit me a quick point of clarification, please.

I also think it's a stretch to suggest (as MJ did in another thread) that the writer or game designer is the 'other participant' in the space.

This is not something I said. It was said in other threads by others. My suggestion in relation to CRPGs was that the computer itself be regarded as a player sharing the imaginary space and communicating with the human player. If we postulate that advances in artificial intelligence will continue to occur mostly incrementally (thus there will be no abrupt leap that distinguishes computers from machines that "actually think") then at some point it will be accepted that a computer participates in play much as a player. At that point a historical perspective would probably say that text-based interactive games were the earliest form of games in which the computer served as the referee-player, such games advancing as computers increased in their capabilities. (As an aside, I wonder how far we are from a model in which the roles are reversed--the human creates and adjudicates the scenario, and the computer makes the in-game character decisions? It would be a very useful model for playtesting, I think.)

I've not expressed a recent opinion on solo play. I never thought of "choose your own adventure" books as being role playing games, but if text-based computer role playing games are counted, these would have to be counted as well (they use the same methodology, generally, pushed back to an earlier level of technology). I could argue that books will never reach the level where they think, but if you argued in response that we're looking at a technological player (thus blurring the already blurry distinction between a book and a datafile), I'd be hard pressed to answer that, so I won't defend the distinction at the present time.

--M. J. Young