What makes an RPG?

[C. Edwards]

Hey Fang,

It seems to me that some of your statements under 'Sharing' are contradictory.  Are some of these computer games and choose-your-path books you mention solo affairs? If so, how can play of one player affect that of another?  I am probably just misunderstanding what you've written.

Here is my continuum breakdown:

Number of Players: Since I consider solo adventure books to be rpgs I would have to say only one player is required.  The thing with these solo books though is that there is a GM present in some sense.  Solo adventure books work in reverse from most standard rpgs in that all possible available stories are already pre-determined.  The designer/GM hands you the book and  basically says "This is the extent of all the player decisions and the extent of all the effects of those decisions that I'm willing to allow in my story."

Sharing: This isn't a required category for me in any sense except in that the "imaginary space" be shared by all participants.  It is not necessary for all participants to be present in that "imaginary space" at the same time or to the same degree. (i.e. solo adventure books).

Influence: It must be possible for decisions, actions, and events that take place in the "imaginary space" to influence aspects of the game removed from that "imaginary space" without altering the game as designed.  Examples of such aspects would include tokens, maps or boards, dice, etc.  This is what I require to deem a game an "rpg by player fiat".  This is certainly possible in games such as Clue, Risk, and Monopoly.

Context: I require for "imaginary space" to be a necessity for me to deem a game an "rpg by design".  Games that can be played purely 'token style' don't qualify (but they do generally fall into what I categorize as "rpg by player fiat").

"Roles": As I understand the term I don't require them.

Hmm, there have been a few more posts since I started this reply.

Walt wrote:

In an old thread I tried to form a definition of "game." That effort came to naught when I realized that any definition would have to cover two very different things: a game as a set of rules and/or equipment for play (game-object), and a game as an actual episode of play (game-event).

Do you think my separation, and the basis of that separation, for "rpg by design" and "rpg by player fiat" are useful for defining that division or just another completely subjective designation?  I've been staring at it too long to tell at this point.

-Chris

[CplFerro]

Dear Mr. Langford:

Corporal Ferro, yes, as a nom de plume.

That introduction was needed to show in brief how I understand the term "principle" in that very quote.

Isn't this how an apparently GM-less game would work?:  With at least two players, at junctures implied by the social interaction governed by the spirit of the game, any player may suggest sensory input, or the outcome of the current situation, which any of the other players may veto.  A deadlock may be resolved by recourse to pre-established mechanics.  

Compare:

"Multiple GMs":  With at least one player, and at least two GMs, where the GMs form a distinct group who cede power to each other in pre-established or improvised manners, as if among their circle they were a group of players with no GMs.

Thus, "GM-less" means that the mantle of GM-hood passes momentarily to each player, at each juncture, giving the option of tacit assent or veto.  Even though a GM-less LARP appears to invest each player with permanent times of GM-hood regarding his own character, realised whenever he speaks or moves, these actions must still be deemed as within pre-established bounds by the group as a whole.



Cpl Ferro

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Corporal Ferro ("iron-body"), the concept you've laid out was elaborated at the Forge some time ago by Emily Care. We've taken to calling it "GM-full" play, and it's the essence of several recent game designs, such as Universalis.

To all, this thread is badly in need of splitting. I'm looking at it in hopes of finding useful break-points, but before that happens (if it does), I urge everyone to consider beginning new threads with sub-topics from this one.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Do you think my separation, and the basis of that separation, for "rpg by design" and "rpg by player fiat" are useful for defining that division or just another completely subjective designation?

I think it's worthwhile to maintain the distinction to be clear about what one is talking about. And I like your terms better than mine (game-object, game-event). But cases like Universalis which is designed for a variety of play, some individual instances of which will meet most definitions of role-playing and some not, will remain problematic.

I also think there's a lot of merit in your "influence" category. Along similar lines, instead of looking at the imaginary space and its influence, we could do a sort of figure-ground reversal and focus on how much is tokenized. Most non role playing games are fully tokenized: it's possible in theory to suspend play, leave the game table as is, and resume play at a later time without relying on the players' memories -- or even with a different set of players. (A few additional bits of information such as which player was in which seat and whose turn it is might have to be tokenized i.e. written down. And if the area contains a cat, this experiment will fail.)

But gray areas still abound. By that measure alone, the HeroQuest board game is not a role playing game (which I might agree with), and The Minister's Cat is (which I don't agree with). For a Diplomacy game, the outward aspects of play could be resumed easily but the loss of the context of past agreements and betrayals would make it not a true continuation of the same game-event. And who wants to argue about whether unseen states inside a computer memory qualify as game tokens or not? Not me.

- Walt

[Le Joueur]

Hiya Chris,

It seems to me that some of your statements under 'Sharing' are contradictory.  Are some of these computer games and choose-your-path books you mention solo affairs? If so, how can play of one player affect that of another?  I am probably just misunderstanding what you've written.

How about a coupla examples?

A computer/book game that is solo (described by an instance):

Choices:

[list=a][*]Tell the guard you don't know which way the thief went.
[*]Draw your knife and prepare for battle.
[*]Keep running.[/list:u]
After a move/page or two each choice leads to "You find yourself in a cell with many smelly criminals."

A computer/book game that isn't solo (described more generally because I'm getting hungry)

You decide not to go to the 'wizard tower' and manage to 'finish the game' without whatever waited there.[/list:u][/list:u][/list:o]Now I'm not going to say that there aren't games that use both, but in my experience (according to my comfort zone), the ones that lean heavily on the former are merely stories with an engagement gimmick.  One of the reasons I fancy Pokémon is that one doesn't have to assemble a whole McGuffin to beat the game.  (Oh, they're a few little ones, but the game isn't specifically 'of that kind.')

See no matter what one thinks, none of these are technically solo; someone had to create them.  The production process delays their play, but it's still there.  One affects it in play by what can be chosen in avoidance.  Like

not going into the bar the gamemaster placed in front of one affects what the gamemaster does.  If avoidance yields nothing but roadblocks, one doesn't actually affect the other's play.  (Sounds like railroading?  Only when railroading is dysfunctional; I refuse to define dysfunctional games as role-playing games.)

Here is my continuum breakdown:

Number of Players:
Sharing:
Influence:
Context:
"Roles":[/list:u]

"Influence!"  I hadn't thought of that one.  Very good Mr. Edwards, yes, I agree that is an important one to consider.  While I don't feel comfortable that every game should influence non-participant subjects, it is most definitely a continuum to consider.  An excellent addition to the list.

In an old thread I tried to form a definition of "game." That effort came to naught when I realized that any definition would have to cover two very different things: a game as a set of rules and/or equipment for play (game-object), and a game as an actual episode of play (game-event).

Do you think my separation, and the basis of that separation, for "rpg by design" and "rpg by player fiat" are useful for defining that division or just another completely subjective designation?  I've been staring at it too long to tell at this point.

Walt raises an important issue, it is quite possible we are committing examples to synecdoche by talking about why they are or are not a role-playing game, which to me is an activity not a product.  I guess that's also why I've been struggling to point out that allowing drift from a specific example product renders it useless as a common example; I've been committing the fallacy that Monopoly is an activity (that'd be "a game of Monopoly").

Let us take a moment and remember we're addressing an activity, and however well intentioned the quibbles about examples in print are, we're being unintentionally vague holding them up as examples of an activity.

I suppose this is another reason I've been trying to move the discussion away from 'this is a role-playing game' ('playing with "roles"' or Monopoly) and to 'these are the realms of criteria to judge activities by' (the continuums).

Both present potent food for thought.

Fang Langford