What is a roleplaying game?

[lumpley]

Axiomatic for tabletop rpgs.  There are people talking about computer rpgs somewhere right now who hold a whole different set of axioms.  Why do we get to define "roleplaying games" and they don't?  What harm does it do us to acknowledge that we're talking about only one kind of rpg?

-Vincent

[timfire]

Just because someone has successfully marketed whales as fish doesn't mean we need to redefine fish to include water-dwelling mammals.  It just means the people calling whales fish are wrong.

IMO, the shared imagined space is axiomatic for role-playing games - not necessarily sufficient, but required.  Also IMO, CRPG's do not have a shared imagined space.

If I may play devils advocate, many people prefer a historical definition of role-playing, where any game that can be linked back to DnD and/or wargaming can legitimantly call itself a rpg. Using that definition, a CRPG counts.

While I, personally, prefer... err... descriptive definitions, I can respect a historical definition.

(I'm sure this idea is expressed in one of those links Ron posted, but I'm feeling too lazy to look through them all.)

[simon_hibbs]

Any definition excluding CRPGs has some serious explaining to do.  "Oh, I'm not defining roleplaying games, just tabletop face-to-face roleplaying games like D&D" counts as serious explaining.

I agree, I think the SIS is often over-played. What about solo game books? There's no sharing there either. I'd say that CRPGs are RPGs because your interaction with the game world is though directly controlling the actions of the character. To put it anoter way, the character is your agent for making changes in the game world. That's clearly true of CRPGs.

Simon Hibbs

[Blankshield]

Axiomatic for tabletop rpgs.  There are people talking about computer rpgs somewhere right now who hold a whole different set of axioms.  Why do we get to define "roleplaying games" and they don't?  What harm does it do us to acknowledge that we're talking about only one kind of rpg?

-Vincent

We don't and it doesn't.  Sorry if I conveyed that sort of snobbery; it wasn't my intent.  

But I don't think it will particularly muddy conversation on the Forge if we continue to leave off the TT from RPG.  Role-playing game, in the context of the Forge, is generally accepted to be table-top, just as fortune is generally accepted to mean a resolution mechanic using random elements in some way, and not what fate has in store for someone.  

James

[Sean]

OK -

Solo RPG gamebooks and computer RPGs do often involve both imaginative transactions and roleplaying. So I'd say that many specimens of each count.

You push on the 'shared' as your criticism. I agree, but don't regard the 'shared' as essential, so don't find this particularly problematic. 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.

Rather, there's only one participant, who has agreed to use the object before him or her as a tool for admitting and excluding various things into his or her imagined space. That's what playing the game amounts to. Rather like going out and playing 'mud pies' by yourself using the same rules that you used playing it with your parents the day before.

There is a fuzzy line here, but it's the same line that comes up on the RPG/boardgame edge: when are you just pushing pieces around and rolling dice? When does the imaginative space cease to be the central locus of game transactions and some real space take its place, as in chess?It's not obvious to me that first person shooter CRPGs are RPGs, because the core activity of the game is a reflex test combined with some puzzle solving. There is 'room' in these games for some role-playing activity (I'm thinking of Doom in particular), but it's not really what the game itself is about.

[simon_hibbs]

You push on the 'shared' as your criticism. I agree, but don't regard the 'shared' as essential, so don't find this particularly problematic. 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.

I know it's quick, but I think  may have to back down on the 'shared' thing actualy. A game book player is participating in an imaginary space largely defined by the game book author. It's shared in that respect. Also if you and I both play a game book, we can talk about it's imaginary space with ease because we both have a 'shared' experience of it.

I still think the imaginary space thing, while essential to roleplaying games isn't unique to them and so can't realy be used itself to distinguish between different types of game. It's how you interact with the SIS that's important. In a roleplaying game you do it almost entirely, and in some games only through controlling your character. In other games there are other ways to interact with it that don't have any connection with an individual character, and so don't involve (much/any significant) roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs

[Sean]

Here's the question I think we have to answer on the 'shared' issue:

If I tell you "OK, here's some rules. Imagine things like this and this and this..." and then send you off to record your various imaginative acts, are you sharing in my space, or just doing something on your own?

I'm not sure I have a decided view on this one way or another. The thing is, there's no feedback to the author of a CRPG or solo gamebook, so it's not shared in that arguably important sense. That person is setting up a playground and rules for your imagination, which you use to introduce and modify imaginative elements, roleplay a little, etc. But is that a 'shared space'? I guess I don't really think so, but I'd be willing to be persuaded to the contrary.

On the other hand groups of people sitting together all playing Everquest together on their laptops do have a shared imagined space in whatever sense tabletop roleplayers do. Even if they aren't in the same room, actually.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think I've expressed this idea somewhere in that wad o'threads I cited, but instead of expecting others to ferret it out, I'll say it here again.

When seeking a definition, you cannot hold the two following things fixed:

1. A basic principle or descriptive feature

2. A set of individual instances that are supposed to be included

One or the other has to go. So either we search through everything that has been tagged "role-playing game" historically and denote them as such as the definition, excluding whatever isn't them ... or we come up with some principle or feature and therefore are likely forced to dis-include some of the historical "role-playing things" and perhaps to include some things which have never been called "role-playing."

My own preference is to stick with #1 and throw out #2. This is the kind of thinking that led people to recognize that the term "reptile" is not actually meaningful in terms of creatures' features and apparent evolutionary history. It tends to make other people very angry because they really liked the term "reptile" or are annoyed that birds are now considered extant dinosaurs.

However, my own preference is not authoritative for purposes of defining role-playing. What I can do is suggest that people understand which of #1 or #2 is their own, personal priority, and to be very clear about it.

If one person proposes a definition based on #1 (a principle or feature), then that proposal cannot be falsified by citing some historical thing that was called "role-playing." The only criterion is whether the principle or feature is reasonable on whatever basis.

Similarly, if one person proposes a definition based on some set of historical activities that are called "role-playing," then it cannot be falsified by citing some activity that shares the same features. The only criterion is whether the initial grouping is reasonable on whatever basis.

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

(I say things about the SIS question here.)

-Vincent

[Christopher Weeks]

Similarly, if one person proposes a definition based on some set of historical activities that are called "role-playing," then it cannot be falsified by citing some activity that shares the same features. The only criterion is whether the initial grouping is reasonable on whatever basis.

This is a serious question.  If you go with that second approach to definitions, what could whatever basis possibly consist of other than some member of the first category?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

It depends on the group who has authority over the definition.

Let's say that they decide ... oh ... that a direct lineage of designers is necessary.

Or let's say that it's a procedural thing and they require a traceable evolution from wargaming dice mechanics.

I bet no one on this website would be happy with either of those. But that's not the point - the point is that using the #2 meaning of "definition" is always going to be argument-by-authority. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't going to hold up well when a designated and recognized authoritative person or group isn't available.

And frankly, the people who are telling Sean "that won't work because it doesn't apply to solo play!" or similar are falling into that trap. They have already decided that "role-playing" must cover certain activities that they have in mind. Hence any argument based on principle is going to fail, if people are participating with pre-designated must-include activities in mind.

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

I'm one of those people.

Like I say, I'm comfortable with us by-principle defining "tabletop roleplaying game."  And defining "roleplaying" in the Forge-default context of tabletop RPGs, as James says.  No prob.  I want a better definition than "has a GM, has no end conditions," but that's easy.

But "is a CRPG an RPG?"  I think all we can legitimately say is "it's not a [/i]tabletop[/i] RPG, on account of [principled definition]."

So I guess my argument-by-authority is that we don't have authority.  Other people out there in the world have as much claim to the unmodified term as we do.

Kind of like ketchup.

-Vincent

[simon_hibbs]

And frankly, the people who are telling Sean "that won't work because it doesn't apply to solo play!" or similar are falling into that trap. They have already decided that "role-playing" must cover certain activities that they have in mind. Hence any argument based on principle is going to fail, if people are participating with pre-designated must-include activities in mind.

I'm wondering if this is aimed at me since I invoked the example of solo play.

I would point out that actualy my inclusion of solo play was explicitly and clearly based on an argument from principle. They are rpgs because you primarily interact with the imaginary space through the medium of a character.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

If it was specifically you, Simon, I would have said so. I do not ever use euphemisms ("people") to indicate a person; I name the person or I'm referring to a general trend. The solo-play issue is merely one example of a general point.

In your case, yes, you're discussing solo-play by principle, which forces us all to dissect "shared" in a constructive way. To paraphrase the state-of-discussion at the moment, as long as we're accepting Sean's "shared," then either solo-play isn't really solo, or it's not role-playing.

But your case is not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about argument-by-known-members (my #2), period. Quite a lot of that shows up in the earlier threads about defining RPGs ("That won't work! It doesn't include LARPs!" etc) and we all need to watch out for it here, if we're accepting the by-principle approach.

Best,
Ron

[Sean]

I was using 'shared' out of habit. The discussions about how important 'shared' is and what exactly it means are still going on in this and other threads. I'm agnostic about its importance right now: the crucial thing to me is that there are certain imaginative constructions going on as part of a game. This may ultimately require a social dimension to differentiate it fromgarden-variety imagination, but I don't have an opinion on that one way or another at this point.