Semantics: Roleplaying vs. Storytelling

[Emily Care]

The mainstream connotations of roleplaying would probably include:
• D&D
• kinky sex stuff, where you pretend to be other people
• business/educational training
• certain computer games

Time to bring those stray lambs home...  I'm surprised there aren't more sex oriented rpgs.  Know it happens (TinySex) on muds/mushes etc.  

A friend suggested making a board game that's an Adult version of Spin the Bottle.  Too bad an Orgy LARP would probably be banned in most states.

We've got pervy and vanilla going on here already...
Any ad exec would tell you that your products and copy have to be sexy...

But more seriously, would it be productive to tie in rpg to those listed above?  I often say "recreational role-playing" when I'm telling somebody what I do. They still look at me like I'm crazy until I say, "You know, like D&D."  D&D, the kleenex of role-playing.

New terms:

Boardless games
Imaginative Play
System-Assisted Storytelling

If this was last decade we could call it "Extreme" something or other.  

Graphic Novel is to Comics
as __________ is to Role-Playing Games.

Novels have more legitimacy than comics, so somebody stuck "graphics" in there to make a "new" medium.

Interactive Stories? Maybe interactivity is the crucial element that all the variants of rpg add.  They are the narrative content etc. of stories, married to the interactivity of games.  I guess they could be called Interactive Storytelling Games to be really accurate.

Well, that's my 2 cents.

--Emily Care

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jared, Ron,

'Course, in some of'em, you do win or lose. But that's not to the point, right? If I'm reading your point right, the key is that the word "game" is perhaps more problematic to the potential customer than the word "role-playing."

Wowsers - that's kind of a big deal, isn't it?

So if we leave it to "telling stories, playing characters" we run into the standard average person's rant of "I'm not creative enough."

Then hit 'em with "If you were so-and-so, what would you do?"  That is why keep on about this 'Who do you want to be' games thing.  You don't need stories; heck let 'em play themselves if they have problems with 'playing characters.'

Who Do You Wanna Be?

What Would You Do If...?

What Would You Do If You Could Have Anything You Wanted?[/list:u]Couldn't be simpler.  Worked on my mother-in-law.  Try it.

Fang Langford

[John Wick]

Hi John!

'Course, in some of'em, you do win or lose. But that's not to the point, right? If I'm reading your point right, the key is that the word "game" is perhaps more problematic to the potential customer than the word "role-playing."

Wowsers - that's kind of a big deal, isn't it?

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron!

I think "roleplaying game" is too small a word to describe everything on the shelf in your local game store. D&D looks nothing like Munchaussen looks nothing like L5R looks nothing like de Profundis looks nothing like GURPS looks nothing like Nobilis. Even the "sub-genres" don't work. Even G/N/S breaks down when it comes to analyzing most RPGs.

(I see G/N/S as a tool some people find valuable for design, but as analysis, falls apart. See The Great Chair/Loveseat/Couch debate for why i think this. I'm sure Ron can find the link. Right, Ron?) :)

Webster's defines game as an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement." That hardly begins to adequately define a game. Under that definition, sex is a game.

(Well, some sex is game-like. But those are "sex games" which I will not discuss in polite company. Ron will have to leave the room first. Jared, too.)

What I think we need is something akin to Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. And, just as most people would ridicule Scott's attempt to look seriously at what most people consider a pasttime, I think most game professionals would mock such an attempt.

Just the reason to try it, says I.

[mattcolville]

In the meantime (as I wade through the forums, cursing), I find all of Jack's post completely convincing. I also think that to the interested almost-gamer-who-doesn't-know-it (can we invent a word for this person?), any terminological ambiguity is off-putting.

Agreed. We had an art intern come in to our offices (the Decipher RPG studio in L.A., home of Star Trek and Lord of the Rings RPGs) yesterday and I had to explain what an RPG was to him. Because it was called a roleplaying game, he couldn't get around the idea that at some point presumably we'd all be engaging in amateur theatrics, which he understandably thought was goofy.

I'm speaking as a long-time comics reader, and following my observation -or perhaps inference - that it wasn't the term "graphic novel" that did the job for comics, but rather critically-undeniable content, a shift in content from fringe (superheroes, which I again repeat that I really like, but they are fringe) to mainstream (most especially Sandman), and in some stores (the ones who've prospered) a different approach to sales and presentation. My accompanying observation and inference is that insisting on "graphic novel" was widely - if not universally - perceived as pretentious.

Ok, first I can't possibly imagine how anyone could think superheroes are fringe with Spiderman ranking 5th in all time box office revenue.

Furthermore, I'm not sure critics and their deniability has anything to do with the acceptance of the term graphic novel. Rather the development in the early 80's of the comic book store and the opportunity to sell direct rather than through newsstands allowed Marvel and DC to put out stuff like God Loves, Man Kills, and Dreadstar, two of the first graphic novels. The term was coined and is still used not to mean 'monthly comic' but rather 'collected story.' We still say graphic novel when we mean something like Sin City, as opposed to a monthy comic. And now we've got Trade Paperback to mean 'a collection originally published as monthly issues.' The idea of comics as something adults can read is, I think, now more popular than the term 'graphic novel.'

Roleplaying game is a bad term, but I think we're stuck with it. I find myself realizing that 'deciding what my character is going to do' and "assuming a role" are not the same thing. But the distinction, along with most of roleplaying, is not something I can explain to a layman.

I have recently come to the conclusion that you cannot explain what an RPG is to someone who knows nothing about them in a way that is A: accurate and B: sounds fun. It's like riding a bike. If I wrote down a list of instructions on how to ride a bike, it might be accurate, but it wouldn't sound fun. You have to do it. Then you get it.

[John Wick]

And one more thing.
Most video games are not games. They are complicated and sophisticated puzzles.

Here's my definitions.

A puzzle is something the designer makes then hands over to the player. Once he does that, his participation in the puzzle is over. The player interracts with the puzzle, not the designer. The player cannot "win" a puzzle; he "solves" the puzzle.

Most video games are puzzles. You do not actively participate with the designer. HALO (my favorite video game) is a puzzle. The designers mapped out the levels, programmed the AI, placed the easter eggs, but once that game is shipped, they do not actively oppose your efforts to "solve" the puzzle.

If you engage HALO in a PVP format (playing against another live player), you've engaged in a game. You are in direct competition against another player. Using the environment the puzzle provides to play a game.

A roleplaying game, then, is not a game at all, but an activity. You do not actively play against another player to win (unless you subscribe to the Antagonistic GM approach). When you finish, there is no winner or loser; and there must be both in order for our subject activity to be a game. At least, as far as my definitions go.

Thus, a roleplaying game, in my eyes, is not a game. It is, has, and always will be (as long as I'm the GM) "cooperative storytelling." That's how I pitch it when I explain it to folks who have no clue what I'm talking about. And, generally, because they really don't know what D&D is really about anyway, I can describe roleplaying without ever bringing up D&D.. and make it sound sexy rather than geeky.

[John Wick]

(Another) By the way,

Matt is the guy I mentioned above.
Good to see you, man!

[mattcolville]

Hey John!

Here's why John's wrong.

It's fun to think like a Hacker and use language in ways is was not meant to be used ("Are you staying or going?" "yes.") I do it all the time. I have what I consider a funny rant on Sport. Here it is;

Golf is not a sport. Here's why. A sport needs the following things. 1) a ball. 2) at least two opposing teams. 3) Each team needs to be able to actively oppose the other team from acheiving some goal.

This includes everything we all agree is a sport (baseball, basketball, football) and excludes all the things we all agree it's ridiculous to call a sport (synchronized swimming.) I have a lot of fun going over this with friends because invariably some people 'get it' and see that I'm being funny while often agreeing with my principle while others don't get it and get really worked up and argue with me.

And while I actually believe that my definition really does the job an academic definition is supposed to do (includes all the things we all agree a sport is, excludes all the things we're dubious about) I'm not seriously expecing things to change. Language doesn't work that way.

What John's doing is taking the term 'game' and trying to change what it means in spite of how everyone uses it. What I'm trying to do is see what everyone's doing, and see if RPG is the right term for that.

Everyone already thinks HALO and D&D are games. So any definition of game that doesn't include them, is wrong. Usage establishes definition.

Most people, however, think of Roleplaying in terms of theater. Psychology. Not gaming. Of the two terms in the name 'Roleplaying' and 'Game' it's the first that confuses laymen, not the second. Everyone sees that it is a game. But most people who play the game don't roleplay, they decide how they're character is going to act or react. These are not the same.

Saying "I ask him how much it costs" is not the same as "Good sir! What is the price of yonder yak?" or 'Grond want pointy cow-thing. Give."

[John Wick]

Hey John!

Here's why John's wrong.

(For the uninitiated, this is how Matt and I throw down. He's bigger than me, but I'm quicker. And cunning.)

The sport thing is great. And fun. Totally confuses people. It also questions the way they think about the word. Challenges their assumptions. (The original intent of the 7th Sea Rilisciare -- before they got turned into terrorists.)

Yes, the vast vast vast majority of people think HALO is a game (even says so on the box), but the vast vast vast majority of people also thought blacks were "sub-men" not too long ago. (Some still do.) Just because the public perception is true doesn't make it right -- or correct.

McCloud's chief goal with Understanding Comics was to challenge people's assumptions about comic books. He even gave them a new name: "sequential art." He did it, not to create a definition, but to challenge the standing definition, make people think about what they thought they knew.

The majority of people don't know what a roleplaying game is. Then, there's the ones who think a roleplaying game is D&D. There's tons of different kinds of roleplaying games. So much so, the term doesn't quite fit anymore. Xenogenesis. The child no longer looks like the parent.

By saying HALO isn't a game isn't challenging the validity of what HALO is. I just think the current definition of "game" is insufficient to describe what a game actually is. "Game" needs a new definition. Maybe a lot of them. Until then, HALO is a incredibly complicated puzzle.

Unless it's Matt and me playing it, me sneaking up behind Matt and tossing a sticky on his unsuspecting ass. Which happens all the time, by the way. Don't let him make you think otherwise.

---
Carpe deus,
John

"It ain't a question of mind over matter. It's a question of will over mind."
- The Tao of Zen Nihilism

[Jonathan Walton]

McCloud's chief goal with Understanding Comics was to challenge people's assumptions about comic books. He even gave them a new name: "sequential art."

That's an unbelievable example!  Scott McCloud didn't coin the term "sequential art" (Will Eisner might have, I think), but that's a great instance of a redefinition that worked.

Do you realize that the Savanna College of Art & Design (along with a few other major art schools) has MAJOR and GRADUATE programs in Sequential Art?  Check it out: http://www.scad.edu/seqa/

Sure, your average Joe doesn't have a clue that "Sequential Art" means "comics," but intellectuals both inside and out of the comic community bought that term hook, line, and sinker.  If nothing else, this proves that new terms can be introduced in a way that makes an impact on certain portions of the population.  Sure, it'll take a while for the masses to learn what Sequential Art really is (if they ever do), but the term has already penetrated academia.

Huzzah!  Down with "roleplaying"!  Up with "mysterious term X"!

[mattcolville]

Yes, the vast vast vast majority of people think HALO is a game (even says so on the box), but the vast vast vast majority of people also thought blacks were "sub-men" not too long ago. (Some still do.) Just because the public perception is true doesn't make it right -- or correct.

It does when we're talking about definitions. A word means what most people who use it think it means. When that changes, the definition of the word changes.

McCloud's chief goal with Understanding Comics was to challenge people's assumptions about comic books. He even gave them a new name: "sequential art." He did it, not to create a definition, but to challenge the standing definition, make people think about what they thought they knew.

I don't agree. Certainly introducing the idea that there's more going on here than meets the eye was what McCloud was trying to do, but finding a 'better' definition for Comics was an intellctual exercice, not in defining comics or challenging people's assumption about them, but understanding them. Hence the title of the book. He knew when he wrote it that people would probably always call them Comics and thus, they would always be the definition of comics.

By saying HALO isn't a game isn't challenging the validity of what HALO is. I just think the current definition of "game" is insufficient to describe what a game actually is. "Game" needs a new definition. Maybe a lot of them. Until then, HALO is a incredibly complicated puzzle.

I disagree. When a product becomes so different from a game that people don't recognize it as such, then a new word will develop for it all by itself. And that's when you know it needs a new word. Until then, the current word's definition will just continue to change to encompass what people mean by it.

[John Wick]

It does when we're talking about definitions. A word means what most people who use it think it means. When that changes, the definition of the word changes.

Is that true of pronunciation, too?
Nucular vs. Nuclear?
Aks vs. Ask?

If tha majohty o th peeps be usin th woids in their own way -- know wha I'm sayin'? -- do tha mak wha they doin' -- know what I'm sayin'? -- th right an proper way o speachin'?

Know wha I'm sayin'?

Seriously, our definition for "game" does not cut the mustard. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing about how people use it or what they think it means. Yes, as far as the American public is concerned, HALO is a game. And yes, you do "play" it. And yes, if I was being Just Plain John, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about what the American public views as a game. But as John the Game Designer, I think its an important question to ask, an important assumption to challenge.

I don't agree. Certainly introducing the idea that there's more going on here than meets the eye was what McCloud was trying to do, but finding a 'better' definition for Comics was an intellctual exercice, not in defining comics or challenging people's assumption about them, but understanding them. Hence the title of the book. He knew when he wrote it that people would probably always call them Comics and thus, they would always be the definition of comics.

Trying to get people to look differently at comics, to understand what's actually going on in there is challenging people's assumptions. People assume all comics are about superheroes. He goes a long way to debunk that assumption. People assume comics are only for kids. Likewise. People assume comics are a new idea. There, again. Time and time again, he attacks people's assumptions. The whole point of his book was to attack those assumptions (in a glib, friendly way) and say, "But, that can't be true because of this..." Yes, he knew people have been calling them comics forever and would probably always call them comics, but he wanted to change how people thought about comics by challenging those assumptions.

I don't want people to stop using the word "game," but to think twice when they throw it around. I don't think SIM CITY is a game any more than my dad's crossword puzzle is a game. Or HALO or HITMAN 2 or even Solitaire. If there's no direct competition, there's no game.

When a product becomes so different from a game that people don't recognize it as such, then a new word will develop for it all by itself. And that's when you know it needs a new word. Until then, the current word's definition will just continue to change to encompass what people mean by it.

That assumes the first word was adequate to define the object. D&D may have been a game when it first started, but what it has become is not.

This should probably move over to the "Game Design Theory" thread anyway. And Matt and I will have it out tonight.

[/i][/quote]

[talysman]

It does when we're talking about definitions. A word means what most people who use it think it means. When that changes, the definition of the word changes.

Is that true of pronunciation, too?
Nucular vs. Nuclear?
Aks vs. Ask?

bad example... the original pronunciation was "aks" ... from the old english verb acsian.

but I don't really mean to be pedantic... what I really wanted to say was: how about "character games" or "character play"? (I prefer "game" but I'll allow "play" as an option.)

we know that most rpgamers don't actually play a role, at least not in the theatrical sense. and I think jonathan's point about calling them "what do you want to be?" games has a certain usefulness.

rpgs aren't story games (not always) and aren't fantasy combat games and aren't simulations of settings or events. they are mostly just a social form of imagination. but you can't say "imagination game" because it will scare people away who are convinced they have no imagination (a large group, thanks to societal attempts to crush creativity when it isn't financially productive.) plus, I suspect "imagination game" is someone's trademark, although I can't remember whose.

but we can all pretty much agree that what you do in an rpg is make and play a character. you play an elf. or a private eye. or a jedi. or a cartoon rabbit. it's the real distinction between rpgs and other games.

[Le Joueur]

We know that most rpgamers don't actually play a role, at least not in the theatrical sense. And I think jonathan's point about calling them "what do you want to be?" games has a certain usefulness.

...But we can all pretty much agree that what you do in an rpg is make and play a character. You play an elf or a private eye or a jedi or a cartoon rabbit. It's the real distinction between rpgs and other games.

That wasn't Jonathan, that was me with the "Who do you want to be?" games.  I never realized that I have a lot of pride (as Ron asks us to have) in my work on and with role-playing games; when explaining them to the nats ('nat'ural humans, I so detest calling them 'mundanes' or 'muggles'), I've always had the best luck calling them "Who do you wanna be?" games.  Then I go on to talk about that feeling when you come out of a movie or book and you wish they'd done something differently, the "Why, if it were me..." feeling.  Most nats get that right away.  Then I hit them with what we do to avoid, "I got you," "No, you didn't" fights.

But that's only how I do it.

Fang Langford

p. s. In the interest of Scott McCloud's work, a coupla years before his book came out, I had worked up a 'definition' of gaming that I was proud of (but am now embarrased by).  I took 'shared fantasies,' 'interactive fiction,' and 'role-playing games,' and came up with 'indulgent, unstructured, engaging, communal, narrative entertainment enacted with consensual suspension of disbelief,' which can still be found out on the newsgroups somewheres.

[John Wick]

bad example... the original pronunciation was "aks" ... from the old english verb acsian.

Um... not to be pendantic, but the Oxford English says...

Middle English, from Old English Ascian; akin to Old High German eiscOn "to ask," Lithuanian eiskoti "to seek," Sanskrit icchati "he seeks"

(Revisionist history propoganda strikes again.)

[Jonathan Walton]

but we can all pretty much agree that what you do in an rpg is make and play a character. you play an elf. or a private eye. or a jedi. or a cartoon rabbit. it's the real distinction between rpgs and other games.

Actually, this was the whole point I was arguing against, which was the start of this entire thread.  I was saying that restricting roleplaying to "playing roles" was a disservice, since it limited the kinds of things that were possible.  Look at Clandestine.  Playing abstract concepts is perfectly possible, but not really a "character" that anyone would really recognise.  I was planning a PBeM RPG where you wouldn't even have that, where players would have Themes that their story would have to resonate on, but could write about anything they wished, while following the rules of the game.