RPGs and related media

[Mike Holmes]

Regarding the Melee/TFT thing, my recollection is that Mike convinced me of his position as stated here in this thread. So, nothing to see here, move along.

Huh. Makes me wonder about myself sometimes.

John, I see your point, and I think that it's an extension of ours. If you are only allowed to consider certain options, then you can't do what you describe. But, touchy-feely aside, really Gamist play might not allow for your example to be valid, yet it would still be RPG play.

Yes, Free Kriegspiel is, by my definition, an RPG. Not because of the GM, which is a red herring, but because the GM provides the open-endedness to the game that is what I'm calling the defining line. I'm biased, of course, because this definition let's in Universalis, which also has no single GM.

I'm getting strong Deja Vu on this thread in relation to the RPG definition threads we had not too long ago, which neccessarily covered much of the same ground.  

Mike

[John Kim]

John, I see your point, and I think that it's an extension of ours. If you are only allowed to consider certain options, then you can't do what you describe. But, touchy-feely aside, really Gamist play might not allow for your example to be valid, yet it would still be RPG play.

No, I think my definition is incompatible with yours.  It doesn't mean that either of us is wrong -- just that there are at least two possible definitions.  Dictionaries have multiple definitions all the time.  Under my definition, role-playing is possible even if options are disallowed, as in a LARP or MUD or a game like Baron Munchausen.  The only thing that is necessary is that there need to be meaningful options which are not chosen on the basis of character point-of-view.  

As for Gamist play, it depends.  If the players really don't care if a player uses out-of-character information and don't even make a distinction, then yes, I would say it is no longer an RPG.  From my view of Melee and Gladiator, I don't think that play generally qualifies as role-playing.  From this definition, gamist role-playing still requires the acknowledgement that one is working within the bounds of character point-of-view.  

My definition has a problem that rules don't define what is or is not an RPG.  For example, one can use a set of rules billed as role-playing for a skirmish-level wargame, and one can use a set of rules billed as a wargame for role-playing.  This is why I called it "touchy-feely" in a sense.

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, OK. That is substantively different. I was seeing it from my own perspective, and not noting that you meant to exclude extreme Gamism. That is, of course, problematic for he obvious reasons, but I think I see what you're saying. I'm not sure about the use, however. Are games that are about extreme Gamism, say T&T close enough to make sense to include them in general discussions about RPGs? If so, then why delineate there?

Mike

[John Kim]

Oh, OK. That is substantively different. I was seeing it from my own perspective, and not noting that you meant to exclude extreme Gamism. That is, of course, problematic for he obvious reasons, but I think I see what you're saying. I'm not sure about the use, however. Are games that are about extreme Gamism, say T&T close enough to make sense to include them in general discussions about RPGs? If so, then why delineate there?

I would say that Tunnels & Trolls works fine as a role-playing system, using role-playing under my definition.  Thus, I think it makes sense to include it in RPG discussion.  I certainly don't think that it is inherent in T&T to exclude character point-of-view, though it has been a while since I've read it.  Regardless, under both of our definitions, some RPG systems can be used for wargames and vice-versa.  So it makes sense to include the overlap cases in RPG discussion, I think.  

One reason I like my definition is because it comes literally from the term "role-playing".  i.e. A role-playing game is any game where you play a role different than yourself as a player.  This makes it somewhat more intuitive in ways, I feel.  However, as we have both agreed, it has the touchy-feeliness problem since it is about how the game is played rather than about the rules or process.

[Paganini]

John, the thing with your definition that doesn't sit well with me is that it's very very broad. It doesn't just include LARPs and MUDs, it also includes every first-person shooter that I'm aware of, many CCGs, and some actual board games and wargames.

I mean, yeah, I appreciate that as a definition it's valid, I'm just not sure how useful it is to define the term such that it includes many activities that vary so much from each other. The design principles that drive FPS design are going to be wildly different from the design principles that drive CCG design, and so on.

I prefer to define role-playing WRT actual activity - that is, when a group of people are creating something through communal imagination. This lets in games like Universalis and SOAP (and possibly LARPS, I dunno mcuh about them), but excludes FPSs and CCGs.

[John Kim]

John, the thing with your definition that doesn't sit well with me is that it's very very broad. It doesn't just include LARPs and MUDs, it also includes every first-person shooter that I'm aware of, many CCGs, and some actual board games and wargames.  

That's interesting, given that Mike had the opposite complaint that it was too restrictive in cutting out Gamist games.  While it could potentially include a first-person shooter game -- that would mean that the player of a FPS would have to not do something based on the personality or knowledge of the character he is playing.  I used to play Doom a bit and never experienced or observed that in play.  

So, based on my experience, I would say that FPS and CCGs are not included in my definition -- but if you have seen role-playing using them, I'd certainly be interested to hear about it.

I prefer to define role-playing WRT actual activity - that is, when a group of people are creating something through communal imagination. This lets in games like Universalis and SOAP (and possibly LARPS, I dunno mcuh about them), but excludes FPSs and CCGs.  

I would note that you're referring to non-existant things in your "actual activity" definition.  That is, there often isn't any tangible something created by tabletop play, though online PBEM or Play-by-Post roleplaying at least create a transcript.  Still, this could be yet another definition.  Presumably this would also include "Once Upon A Time" and other storytelling games as RPGs, right?

[Paganini]

John, the thing with your definition that doesn't sit well with me is that it's very very broad. It doesn't just include LARPs and MUDs, it also includes every first-person shooter that I'm aware of, many CCGs, and some actual board games and wargames.  

That's interesting, given that Mike had the opposite complaint that it was too restrictive in cutting out Gamist games.  While it could potentially include a first-person shooter game -- that would mean that the player of a FPS would have to not do something based on the personality or knowledge of the character he is playing.  I used to play Doom a bit and never experienced or observed that in play

So, based on my experience, I would say that FPS and CCGs are not included in my definition -- but if you have seen role-playing using them, I'd certainly be interested to hear about it.

Hmm. When you put it like that, I have to go a layer deeper and ask what you mean by "play a role." When I play Half Life, for example, I identify pretty strongly with Gordon Freeman. That's me there running around the Black Mesa complex, blowing away aliens and torching GIs. I'd say I'm playing that role. But, there's not a lot of scope for me the player to make character defining choices... that is, I don't have any opportunity to get "out of character;" the game options are pretty much all things that I'm expected - as Gordon Freeman - to do. So, if playing a role means an active choice based on the character when there are other options available, then I guess a FPS doesn't meet your definition.

I prefer to define role-playing WRT actual activity - that is, when a group of people are creating something through communal imagination. This lets in games like Universalis and SOAP (and possibly LARPS, I dunno mcuh about them), but excludes FPSs and CCGs.  

I would note that you're referring to non-existant things in your "actual activity" definition.  That is, there often isn't any tangible something created by tabletop play, though online PBEM or Play-by-Post roleplaying at least create a transcript.

Yes, in case the wording wasn't clear; By "create" I just mean that, when the group is finished, *something* has been produced by the real-time imaginings of the group. That *something* doesn't have to have any phsyical representation or have an actual existence beyond the memories of the participants.

Still, this could be yet another definition.  Presumably this would also include "Once Upon A Time" and other storytelling games as RPGs, right?

Er... hehe... never seen / played "Once Upon A Time," one of those things, you know. But, Universalis is pretty much a "storytelling game," so probably, yeah.

[John Kim]

(Re: first-person shooters) I don't have any opportunity to get "out of character;" the game options are pretty much all things that I'm expected - as Gordon Freeman - to do. So, if playing a role means an active choice based on the character when there are other options available, then I guess a FPS doesn't meet your definition.

Yup, that's my definition.  If during actual play you choose not to take certain moves on the basis of who your character is, then it involves some role-playing.   So it seems like you agree that there isn't role-playing in Half Life.  Nevertheless, I'm interested to hear that you get into the role of Gordon Freeman.  My only experience was with Doom, where I had absolutely no idea who the character was and didn't care.  

I prefer to define role-playing WRT actual activity - that is, when a group of people are creating something through communal imagination. This lets in games like Universalis and SOAP (and possibly LARPS, I dunno mcuh about them), but excludes FPSs and CCGs.  
...
By "create" I just mean that, when the group is finished, *something* has been produced by the real-time imaginings of the group. That *something* doesn't have to have any phsyical representation or have an actual existence beyond the memories of the participants.  

Question: doesn't this also describe a wargame?  That is, in an engaging wargame, I come away with a clear imaginary picture of the battle which occurred, and especially of the actions which I determined to bring about my victory.  This would not fit an abstract game like Go or Chess, or even a mildly themed game like Settlers of Catan.  But it would appear to accurately describe simulation games like Advanced Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles.  

Er... hehe... never seen / played "Once Upon A Time," one of those things, you know. But, Universalis is pretty much a "storytelling game," so probably, yeah.  

Just to let you know.  OUAT works like this:  Each player is dealt a hand of cards.  The cards have fairy-tale elements on them like "Sword" or "Princess" or "Kiss".  One player starts telling a story, and as he introduces elements which match cards in his hand, he can discard the card.  However, another player can interrupt either (1) when he discards a card and they have an interrupt which matches that card type, or (2) when his story says something that matches what is in a card you have.  The interrupted player draws one new card, and the interrupting player then becomes the storyteller and must continue the story.  The game ends when a player gets rid of all his cards.

[Paganini]

Yup, that's my definition.  If during actual play you choose not to take certain moves on the basis of who your character is, then it involves some role-playing.   So it seems like you agree that there isn't role-playing in Half Life.  Nevertheless, I'm interested to hear that you get into the role of Gordon Freeman.  My only experience was with Doom, where I had absolutely no idea who the character was and didn't care.

Slight tangent alert:

That's understandable... most of the plot of Doom was in the manual. :) Half Life, though is esteemed as one of the most immersive gaming experiences ever created; it's basically regarded as an interractive movie where you get to blow up aliens. :)

Question: doesn't this also describe a wargame?  That is, in an engaging wargame, I come away with a clear imaginary picture of the battle which occurred, and especially of the actions which I determined to bring about my victory.  This would not fit an abstract game like Go or Chess, or even a mildly themed game like Settlers of Catan.  But it would appear to accurately describe simulation games like Advanced Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles.

It does some wargames; in fact, when I dabble with wargame design, exactly this sort of effect is one of my goals. Some of my favorite accounts of the actual play of wargames may be found on the Piquet website (don't have the URL handy). They read like RPG transcripts. Note that Universalis also falls into this category in reverse... there's nothing in the rules that says you have to have characters.

[M. J. Young]

A role-playing game is any game where you play a role different than yourself as a player.

On the surface, this would seem to exclude I Games?

That is, whenever anyone begins in a Multiverser campaign, he is playing himself, thrown into an unusual situation. Certainly the longer the campaign continues, the more the character diverges from the player--but it is interesting to watch how beginning players give so much thought into what would I really do here?. This is particularly true of experienced role playing gamers, who often see a lot of things that they would have their characters do in other games which they would not themselves do given that same circumstance.

Thus a large part of the initial play is about playing a role that is very accurately yourself, against the background of a different world.

Does "different than yourself" mean this?

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I have been giving this quite a bit of thought and was writing a very long reply but we have thunderstorms around here and just when I though "hmm... maybe I should save all of this before the power goes out" the power went out and about 2 hrs of work was sacrificed to the electron pulse gods. I haven't had time yet to try to rebuild that particular dike just yet. I may post it as a new thread since it went in another direction from this thread.

[John Kim]

A role-playing game is any game where you play a role different than yourself as a player.

On the surface, this would seem to exclude I Games?

Note that I said "yourself as a player".  Maybe that wasn't phrased too well, though.  My intent was certainly that playing yourself under imaginary circumstances different than the physical game would qualify.  The way I phrase it on my website is that hypothetically, a person looking over your shoulder suggests a move, and you reply "No, my character wouldn't do that."  But I intended that the character could be anyone, including a real person under imaginary circumstances.  

I guess I should specify that, but it detracts from the simplicity of the explanation for something that is a relatively rare variant (in my experience).