Tony's Standard Rant #1: Roleplay/Game Duality

[TonyLB]

What I'm trying to do, is distill down what it is about a roleplaying game that makes it different from other kinds of games, and indeed what makes them different from other kinds of human interaction.

Fine.  Take that to another thread.  It doesn't belong here.

[James Holloway]

What I'm trying to do, is distill down what it is about a roleplaying game that makes it different from other kinds of games, and indeed what makes them different from other kinds of human interaction.

Well, it could be that miniatures gaming is a bit of a blind alley then -- of all the games from chess and go to pinochle and Settlers and Pac-Man, miniatures wargaming is one of the most similar to RPGs, really.

[Lee Short]

Wow, maybe I'm misunderstanding these games.

Do the little pieces of lead actually physically attack each other?  Do they get wounded?  If the system has morale checks, do the lead figures physically express fear?

Because if they don't (as I rather suspect they don't, unless minis have come a long way since my day) then you're still working on a shared imaginary space.  Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.  The miniatures rules use words like 'attack' and such to help foster the development of an SIS in the players' minds.  But they cannot force the development of an SIS in the players' minds; some players will still not have an SIS.  But those players are still going to use the word 'attack', because that's the terminology used in the rules.

[Vaxalon]

If all I do, all session long, is slog through an off-the-rack dungeon, roll dice, and use the game mechanics to wordlessly kill orcs and take their stuff, is that contributing to the SIS or not?

I would say no, it's not... not because there's no SIS, but because there's no contribution on your part.  You are performing, by rote, actions scripted to you by the materials you're using.

[Vaxalon]

What I'm trying to do, is distill down what it is about a roleplaying game that makes it different from other kinds of games, and indeed what makes them different from other kinds of human interaction.

Fine.  Take that to another thread.  It doesn't belong here.

I disagree.  I think it's entirely germaine to this discussion.  There is something that makes a roleplaying game unique among all types of games.  Whatever that thing is, will, I believe, turn out to be the factor which, when removed from a roleplaying game, causes it to cease to be a roleplaying game, and when added to another kind of game, causes it to become a roleplaying game.

[Vaxalon]

What I'm trying to do, is distill down what it is about a roleplaying game that makes it different from other kinds of games, and indeed what makes them different from other kinds of human interaction.

Well, it could be that miniatures gaming is a bit of a blind alley then -- of all the games from chess and go to pinochle and Settlers and Pac-Man, miniatures wargaming is one of the most similar to RPGs, really.

That's why I chose it... because it's just on the hairy edge.  You really have to push it to make it NOT be a roleplaying game... which means that it makes a good borderline.  Yes, the point would be easier to make using chess, and I may have to fall back to that position if things continue to go the way they are going, but I think there's a point to be made at this position, as well.

[TonyLB]

Lee:  Ah, okay, I get you.  And, given the clarification, I agree.  "Attack" can be shorthand for "Roll these dice, and if the value is X or above, take the piece off of the board and place it in this area over here," and have no connotations of conflict or bloodshed.  Wierd.  I couldn't play the game that way.  I can't even play chess that way.  My knights act out of loyalty to the crown.


Fred:  So I'm performing actions by rote?  So what?  How does that make it not a contribution?  Nobody else did it.  I did!  And the SIS changed because I did it.

I get the impression that, as James said earlier, what you really mean is "Important Contribution."  Is that right?  Or do you genuinely feel that such actions have zero impact on the SIS?

[James Holloway]

I disagree.  I think it's entirely germaine to this discussion.  There is something that makes a roleplaying game unique among all types of games.  Whatever that thing is, will, I believe, turn out to be the factor which, when removed from a roleplaying game, causes it to cease to be a roleplaying game, and when added to another kind of game, causes it to become a roleplaying game.

But what does it have to do with the distinction between "roleplay" and "game" within a roleplaying game?

[TonyLB]

James, don't engage him on this point.

Fred, you disagree.  That's fine.  Luckily, we don't have to debate it.  My thread.  My call.  Discussions of "What is an RPG?" are not on topic.

[Vaxalon]

I get the impression that, as James said earlier, what you really mean is "Important Contribution."  Is that right?  

You know, you're probably right... because without that distinction, the definition of what a roleplaying game is falls apart, and any game becomes a roleplaying game.

[TonyLB]

Okay, so we've discovered that we're talking about different things.  Cool!  Progress, progress, progress.

Do you get what I'm saying now?

[Vaxalon]

Oh, I understand what you're saying.  I think I always have... I just don't like the implications.

[John Kim]

I think it's entirely germaine to this discussion.  There is something that makes a roleplaying game unique among all types of games.  Whatever that thing is, will, I believe, turn out to be the factor which, when removed from a roleplaying game, causes it to cease to be a roleplaying game, and when added to another kind of game, causes it to become a roleplaying game.

But what does it have to do with the distinction between "roleplay" and "game" within a roleplaying game?

Isn't that clear?  If we can identify something which is "gaming" but not "role-playing" outside of RPGs -- and if it is something that also happens inside of RPGs -- then that thing can reasonably be described as "gaming" within the RPG that is distinct from "role-playing".  

Tony is trying to deny this by painting a portrait of role-playing which extends to, say, chess.  Thus, he claims "role-playing" and "gaming" are inseparable.  

Now, I don't agree with this -- I have a more narrow view of role-playing, but it is also a different distinction from Vaxalon.  I identify role-playing with deciding by picturing oneself in the place (or role) of a character.  For example, there are some games (like Once Upon A Time) which are storytelling or other games that create a Shared Imagined Space without being RPGs.  Now, I agree with Tony, that a purely mechanical declaration may add to the Shared Imaginary Space.  So a game like Squad Leader will also have a Shared Imaginary Space.  

That said, though, "role-playing game" is such a laden term that I hesitate to dissect it in theoretical discussion.  (i.e. Everyone identifies with "role-playing" and it is generally considered an insult for something to be "not a role-playing game".)

[Vaxalon]

Everyone in THIS community, anyways.

Personally, I play lots of games that aren't roleplaying games, and I have a lot of fun with them.  I don't think it's an insult... well, I suppose I would think so, if a game that I had written as a roleplaying game had been described as NOT a roleplaying game.

[Vaxalon]

I have a more narrow view of role-playing, but it is also a different distinction from Vaxalon.  I identify role-playing with deciding by picturing oneself in the place (or role) of a character.

Well, the SIS was a possible distinction.  Your counterargument that there are games that clearly have an SIS that aren't roleplaying games is a convincing one, so I will abandon that distinction... it doesn't draw the border where I see it.

Identification with character is probably a better one, as long as one takes a somewhat loose interpretation of what a 'character' is, including various non-person adversaries, such as the sea in "The Old Man and the Sea."