"playing a role for fun"

[quozl]

"playing a role for fun"

That's my definition of a roleplaying game.  I thought it was an obvious definition but Ron Edwards called it "extremely dubious and debatable" so I wonder how the rest of you define a roleplaying game.

[Le Joueur]

When I explain what I design to family and co-workers, I call them "Who Do You Want to Be Games" or I call it "Who Do You Want to Be Play" depending on how the listener is likely to take 'games' as a word.

I believe it becomes dubious when you include Universalis, where 'playing a role' isn't quite what it's about.  I don't include it, so I haven't that problem.  (Likewise, how is "playing a role for fun" not community theatre or dating?)

Fang Langford

[quozl]

(Likewise, how is "playing a role for fun" not community theatre or dating?)

Fang Langford

Why does the term roleplaying game not need to include that too?  (And I would be pretty upset if I found out that someone viewed a date with me as a roleplaying game!)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello Jon,

Here's my reasoning.

1) "Fun" is an empty definition. It only takes on meaning when you identify what specific activities, principles, and interactions are fun. A great deal of the theory at the Forge is founded on the idea that these things differ among people. Two people in a role-playing group may be equally and fully committed to having fun, and yet their activities, etc, result in one another having less fun.

2) "Playing a role" is not sufficient to describe what we do in the hobby (and I include everything from Universalis to Rolemaster to Rune). What happens, or rather what seems to be universal, is generating a series of imagined, causal events, with some degree of character-imagination ("protagonism") as well.

Therefore, it's hard for me even to know what your version looks like, because it's empty. I have no idea what constitutes fun for you, among a group of people. I don't know what you mean by playing a role - does that involve what a Narrativist would call climactic resolution? Or does it involve taking on a particular accent and set of mannerisms? Or does it involve making character-decisions strictly from in-character knowledge? All three of these are referred to as "playing my character" by different people.

Best,
Ron

[quozl]

Ron,

Yes, fun is relative.  What's your point?  

If "'Playing a role' is not sufficient to describe what we do in the hobby", what is?  That's the point of this thread.  Define what "roleplaying game" means to you. Is it "a series of imagined, causal events, with some degree of character-imagination ("protagonism") as well"?  That seems to address the "roleplaying" part but not the "game" part.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The point of the "fun" being relative (or rather, personal-customized) is that "fun" cannot be an internal defining property of role-playing as a hobby or activity. Instead, think of "fun, lesiure, group activities" as a larger category, and "role-playing game" as being a sub-set or member of that group.

Also, I don't see any particular reason to approach this entire issue from the word-by-word definition perspective. In other words, "game" may or may not be necessary to define or satisfy.

It's not as if we have the term X + Y + Z and then have to break it down by each component. Instead, XYZ is merely the historical label that was applied and stuck. There were lots of labels to choose from: fantasy wargame, for instance, or fantasy role-playing game (FRPG). I think role-playing game (RPG) merely ended up being the most generic and easily-applied of the bunch, with no special merit in terms of content besides being non-specific.

This issue has been kicked around on the Forge at least three times, and each time, I've been underwhelmed by the results. My only comments have usually been to bow out, or to show why the term "game," for instance, has too many applications (many of them very emotional) to be rigorously useful in a definition.

Best,
Ron

[JSDiamond]

I think that we role-play (as in an 'rpg') because we want to make 'a significant difference' in the universe.  Because even though it's a story, it's still a real thing in that it's a piece of fiction, art, myth, fable, -whatever you want to call it.  We have a direct and real input into the story.

On another level, the "fun" (I believe) is the freedom to do what we want, for good or ill.  It's like being god to varying degrees.  We know the rules (whatever system) and therefore it's a perfect universe.  Maybe that encourages us to make poor tactical decisions.  Maybe that dares us to be evil and merciless, or selfless and brave.

It's strange that we have less optimism that we might accomplish anything so grand in real life.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

This issue has been kicked around on the Forge at least three times, and each time, I've been underwhelmed by the results.

Agreed. That and it's a rather hollow discussion. I don't think Chrysler spend days discussing "What is a car" "What is a van" sort of things when they invented the minivan. --  That was Chrysler, wasn't it? Well, that's all I've got for the subject.

[Mark Johnson]

Quozl,

The tautological answer is that a role playing game is a game where you play roles other than that of simply player.  Mind you, this encompasses a wide variety of products beyond what might be traditionally construed as a role playing game:  Monopoly (real estate magnates), action based computer games like Doom (space marine), Magic: the Gathering (dueling wizards) and How To Host A Murder (characters from a mystery) all have roles that are played by people, though I doubt that many people would consider any or all of these RPGs.

This is all overlooking one thing, a role playing game is a commodity.  So the best definition that I can come up with is that a role playing game is a game that is sold as a role playing game to people who buy role playing games.  A game like Universalis, though in my book it is probably more of a story telling game than anything, can be considered without question a role playing game because it is marketed to people who buy role playing games.  

(Free internet RPGs are simply free versions of this commodity; they are a quirk of a very quirky market for these games.)

Since the market for "social" games, board games and card games is much larger than that for traditional RPGs; it seems that a product that could gain enough of a foothold in one of those markets would be marketed as that, rather an RPG.  I think there might even be a secondary market for a "storytelling" game like Universalis that is even larger than that for an RPG as "interactive fiction" or "social improv game."  Though such a game would probably have to lose most vestiges of RPGs that would make it marketable to the general RPG marketplace.

Thanks,
Mark

[quozl]

The tautological answer is that a role playing game is a game where you play roles other than that of simply player.  Mind you, this encompasses a wide variety of products beyond what might be traditionally construed as a role playing game:  Monopoly (real estate magnates), action based computer games like Doom (space marine), Magic: the Gathering (dueling wizards) and How To Host A Murder (characters from a mystery) all have roles that are played by people, though I doubt that many people would consider any or all of these RPGs.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark, I fully agree with your entire post but wanted to focus on this part in particular.  My question is:

If roleplaying games are simply "playing a role for fun", then why is there such an insistance among a certain section of RPGers (mainly, the ones that buy games that are marketed as RPGs), that Monopoly, Doom, Magic, How to Host a Muder, etc., are NOT RPGs?

In other words, why do we insist on seperation?  Why do we keep thinking that the RPGs that are marketed as RPGs are unique among games?  Roleplaying games are not the minority; they are the mainstream!

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Quozl,

I'm not going to try to give you definition, but simply break the idea of having one.

I played in a Sorcerer game with Jesse.  Playing the role was part of the fun.  Making up a story with other people was more the fun for me.

Who's to say what turns somebody on.  For me, I want the fun of weaving theme, emotion and narrative.  The role is a sliver of that.

Take care,
Christopher

[jrients]

I'm not going to try to give you definition, but simply break the idea of having one.

I agree.  I have yet to see what good it does to have a formalized definition of roleplaying.  All it does is provide fuel to the "game X is not an RPG" style of silliness.

I think what is more useful would be to develop a good motto or slogan to market rpg's to other folks.  Fang tackles this one nicely:

When I explain what I design to family and co-workers, I call them "Who Do You Want to Be Games" or I call it "Who Do You Want to Be Play" depending on how the listener is likely to take 'games' as a word.

[Mark Johnson]

Quozl,

On an artistic level, I agree with you.  Most games fall onto a continuum with varied axes, one of which is the degree to which you adopt a "role" in a game with qualitative variations included as well.

This is really irrelevant in the marketplace.  Calling it an RPG just tells the distributors and retailers that they will get better crossover traffic if they market it with Dungeons and Dragons or Vampire rather than with Monopoly or any of the other games mentioned.  The market can be wrong, but in any field where money is at stake getting attractive products in front of the right customers is important.

I get a feel from some posters here (not you specifically) that the need for RPGs to be "mainstream" comes from some kind of inferiority complex.  Similarly, I have noted that some embraced RPGs being unmainstream in a very elitist way (I am probably guilty of this on occasion).  

Both of these attitudes hinder mainstream acceptence of RPGs, but I don't think that the mainstream is really who most game desigers are going for.  I think that the main focus should be to develop and market products that add vibrancy and interest to the specific niche market of role playing games.

"Slipstream" role playing games like Magic: The Gathering and Doom actually do introduce the public to role playing.  However, because they are not marketed as such, they do not increase the vibrancy of the core RPG market as a whole.  In fact, they sap it, because people who would normally be looking at the "RPG" section of a store are now at a different counter looking at other card games, dice games and such.  

I think that even if one does develop a slipstream game with more elements of the traditional role playing game, it may not be good for the hobby as a whole for this very reason.  It will not be marketed with other role playing games (and certainly not indie RPGs), it will put crossmarketed with boardgames or computer games or something none of us have thought of.

Thanks,
Mark

[quozl]

I'm not sure why people keep bringing marketing into this.  This is the RPG Theory forum, not the Publishing forum.  My point in defining "roleplaying games" is to help people design them, not sell them.

To those that have posted, thank you.  Now let me be clear in my intent since it seems I failed to do so previously.

First, I define roleplaying games as "playing a role for fun".  This means that Clue, Monopoly, community theater, Universalis, Rolemaster, Rune, Doom, Magic, How to Host a Murder, and Sorcerer are roleplaying games under my definition.

Why is this important to RPG Theory?

I've noticed a lot of cannibalistic design in games that are mareketed as RPGs.  I'm sure most of you have too or there wouldn't be an embracing of "indie games", games that are supposed to not be cannibalistic of other RPGs.  Sadly, I think we're starting to see a new generation of cannibalistic design.  For example, how many indie games cannibalize Sorcerer?  

So I think that by expanding what you think a "roleplaying game" is, you can shake off the limits of the label and become truly "indie" (independent).  Do not just "develop a slipstream game with more elements of the traditional role playing game"!  Design a truly independent roleplaying game that does not require being immersed in the "traditional roleplaying culture".  (In order for it to be traditional, there must be a culture to develop that tradition.)

As I've said before, roleplaying is universal.  Everyone knows how to roleplay and does so in their everyday lives. All it takes is a game to make that roleplaying a fun leisure-time activity that everyone can enjoy.

I hope this helps.

[jrients]

First, I define roleplaying games as "playing a role for fun".  This means that Clue, Monopoly, community theater, Universalis, Rolemaster, Rune, Doom, Magic, How to Host a Murder, and Sorcerer are roleplaying games under my definition.

[...]

So I think that by expanding what you think a "roleplaying game" is, you can shake off the limits of the label and become truly "indie" (independent).

Now I see your point.  Within the context of RPG design, a maximally expansive definition helps highlight new territory for exploration.  Outside of design and in the realm of actual play, such a definition could become meaningless.  That doesn't sound like a concern given the context though.