Role playing is not a goal?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Plucked from the "GNS Showdown" thread over in the GNS Model discussion forum, in an attempt to curb my normal "support thread drift" tendencies . . .  

Start from scratch. Think about it as "my game" instead of "my role playing game". Later on, if it suits the goals of your game you might put in a role playing element. If not, then don't. That's it.

Herr llama,

For some people, role playing IS a (even THE) goal of play.  For some designers, supporting role playing IS a/the goal of their design.  These seem to me pretty much undeniable facts, that I confess lead me to find your "approach" fatally flawed from the get-go.

What am I missing?

Gordon

[joe_llama]

Sorry Gordon. I can't answer any 'stray' threads at the moment. I really wish to talk about this but I have very little time. All issues concerning my outrageous claims will be discussed in 'RPG theory' forum, where I will begin the contruction of a new game design model. The project could crash any moment, but it's worth the try :)

Again, sorry for this impolite and evasive reply.

Wth respect,

Joe Llama

[C. Edwards]

Here is my take on it.

Assuming that:
   
1)A game design element is any idea, object, or act integrated into a game design in a manner where utilization of that particular element is unavoidable by following the rules of that game.
 
(This applies to rolling dice, role-playing, tickling monkeys, calculus, or throwing a ball.  As long as utilizing it is an inherent, unavoidable consequence of following the rules of that game.)

2)The very act of playing any game results in system exploration. (purposefully or not)


Then the end goal of ANY game design is to promote the exploration of its specific game elements in an entertaining manner.  The goal of a player is to be entertained.

For someone to say that "to role-play" is thier goal in playing a game is misleading.  What they're saying is "I find role-playing entertaining."  They would try and find games with a strong role-playing element.  It might be a game where the rules allow them to role-play any character they can imagine or it might be a game where you play a guy with a demon....

C. Edwards

[contracycle]

For someone to say that "to role-play" is thier goal in playing a game is misleading.  What they're saying is "I find role-playing entertaining."  They

Thats right.  I might suggest that the reason they are doing so is that they are aware that, of all the entities in the category "game", it is primarily those that exhibit prominent role playing elements in which they are interested.  This seems to me a valid description; without this qualification, we cannot distinguish a given gamers preference as lying with ball-games or role-games.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that football is indistinguishable from monopoly because they are both games.    It is therefore IMO also ridiculous to propose that should all be described with undifferentiated terminology - the distinction between football and basketball lets everyone now something about the game in question.

I think is perfectly legitimate to describe the games WE are interested in as RPG's.  We are NOT dealing with games in general or abstract - we ARE in fact focussed on a particular subset of the category "game", namley games that feature a significant roleplay element.  What benefit do we gain from FAILING to make this explicit?  Will we ever be addressing games which do NOT feature "roleplay elements"?  No.  Thus the common denominator of our exercise is that these are games (as opposed other forms of RP) and their significant feature is the playing of roles (as opposed other forms of game).  This seems to convey a lot of useful, immediately accessible information to pretty much anyone, and I can see no reason whatsoever in abandoning an explicit term in favour of an obscurantist one.

[C. Edwards]

It's my opinion that while we may be interested in role-playing games (games with a dominate role-play element) specifically, they are just a specialization of the larger sub-set of "game".  Just as a race car is a sub-set of car, which in turn falls under the category of transportation.  

While many of the games we know and love today have evolved in an organic manner from their original roots, there's no reason that we should let that distract us from the fact that all games, regardless of specific specialization (physical games such as football or "toy" games such as Operation) can be, and maybe should be, built by using a base game design tool set.  This would involve game designers being aware that all games consist of certain game elements (a resolution factor being one of these) and that those elements should be combined to promote the play experience that the designer envisions.  It would also demand that game designers be honest about the elements of which a game is built when presenting that game to the public.

This of course requires some common set of definitions that can be used by both game designer and potential game player.  Ron's GNS essay is great for this, in my opinion, when it comes to analyzing and contrasting the role-play element of a game against other elements in that game.  As long as designer and player alike realize that it describes possible configurations of the role-play element and not the "correct" or "best" configurations.

I think a game designer can only be doing a disservice to themselves by not keeping the larger palette of game design at hand during the design process, as opposed to just keeping a much smaller palette at hand consisting of what the game designer considers to be the elements of their game specialization.

What I think Joe wants to do is build and define the base tool box for the benefit of all game designers.  Is The Forge the proper place for that?  I don't know.  I do know that the minds that frequent The Forge are incredibly sharp and creative. If any group of people could offer useful and interesting input to such an endeavor it would be those who frequent The Forge.

- C. Edwards

[contracycle]

This would involve game designers being aware that all games consist of certain game elements (a resolution factor being one of these) and that those elements should be combined to promote the play experience that the designer envisions.  

What I'm confused about is why you seem to think that this is not the case.  We have RPG's based on an endless variety of die-rolling conventions, several which use cards, several which use hand signals.  Can you think of any other subcategory of "game" which exhibits such a wide spread of methodologies?  Furthermore, I suggest the general category "game" is almost useless to us; the probability of anyone conceiving an RPG which used a football in any capacity is remote.  Not all methodologies appearing in the general category "game" are appropriate after all - what do we have to gain by failing to describe the precise subcategory we are interested in?  This does not mandate any form of restriction on how we construct our games beyond the practical, and I certainly see no evidence that game designers are particularly hide-bound in their selection of methods.

[C. Edwards]

This would involve game designers being aware that all games consist of certain game elements (a resolution factor being one of these) and that those elements should be combined to promote the play experience that the designer envisions.  

What I'm confused about is why you seem to think that this is not the case.

It's not so much that I don't think it is the case as that there seems to be a breakdown somewhere in the process with many, many RPGs resulting in what I believe Ron refers to as incoherency.  

Whether this is mainly due to the designer not having a clear vision of his/her game's concept, just poor follow through, or something else entirely, I don't know.  I just don't see how it can hurt to solidify the foundation that current RPG design and diagnostic tools (such as GNS) rest upon.

-C. Edwards