What makes an RPG?

[quozl]

Again, it is simplistic, but perhaps:

1) Let's use the simple definition of role above? (See NOTE in above section re: explicitness and rigorousness)

-Sindyr

We must agree to disagree since I agree with this:

A role is simply a character or persona that is not completely identical to ourselves, that we imagine or consider.

but I do not agree with how you said that playing the wizard in Magic is not a role.  It is an imagined persona that is not identical to ourselves, just like when I play Monopoly, I take on an imagined persona not identical to myself, the greedy property baron (who has no setting, no name, no characteristics other than "greedy", but is still a persona different than myself).

[Le Joueur]

What is gaming?

Yer pretty close with the "imaginary space" idea.  That's a definite.  However, little else is.  Most of the rest of the qualities are continuums.  Each person has their own comfort level in terms of what they will or won't accept as gaming.

I think one concept that is rather central, yet gets so little attention is sharing.  Taken to the ultimate extreme, I think it quite clear that you can't role-playing game alone.  What about Tunnels & Trolls you say?  Somebody had to write those solo adventures!  Y'see, I'm pretty sure it isn't gaming until you're doin' it with someone.  And that means sharing.  (Is it really 'with someone' if you don't give them any?)

If sharing weren't so important, the Lumpley principle (mechanics facilitate reaching consensus of in-game results) would be largely pointless.  If sharing weren't so important would 'narrative control rights' be of any issue?

So what does that leave?  Players...interacting...about and/or within a shared "imaginary space."  That pretty much covers it.  All other issues (continuums) regard how 'traditional' the game is (and are subject to differing comfort levels).  For example:

Console Video Games

Whether you consider these role-playing games or not depends on your minimum comfort level with the sharing idea; does interacting with the full-on static creation of another person count?  (Can it be a role-playing game if it's

completely railroaded?)[/list:u]
Universalis

How attached you are to the idea that player-characters are the exclusive connection to the role-playing gaming, shared "imaginary space" determines whether this is a role-playing game to you.[/list:u]

Freeform

Explicit systemization is overrated.  People must play systematically in order to have a relevant (by way of consistency), shared "imaginary space."  The continuum here is how implicit the systemization is; being too implicit often fails in explanation to satisfy a third party's comfort level regarding sharing.[/list:u][/list:u]The whole "Role...Playing...Game" taxonomy was amusing the first twenty or thirty times I heard it.  And you can still fit what I've given into it, if you're willing to mangle the language (Role = players' doings + Playing = interacting + Game = shared "imaginary space").  It is highly problematic to use as a form of communication because it carries much unnecessary garbage.  Universalis, Ars Magica, and Munchausen's begin to demonstrate how flexible 'playing a role' really is.  Pretty much any way you look at breaking it up, when you separate "playing" it becomes redundant because how can you have a "game" that you aren't "playing?"  And well, if you don't see what kind of chess-wargaming-soccer baggage comes with the word "game," I can't help you.

Before I let you go, I need to point out that you can use social contract to drift any ruleset.  However, if you accept that into discussion, then there are no examples that can be used.  If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples.  Can we drop what anything can be drifted to?  It's just a straw man argument underscoring that we must go by a game's text to determine what it's for.  Magic: the Gathering therefore need not be considered.  (I don't remember the interaction in that game being over

shared "imaginary space;" in some plays you never interact with your opponent's personal "imaginary space," whereas in Munchausen's you can't avoid that.  But again that is just another 'comfort zone' about how far down the continuum of shared "imaginary space" you accept; opinions differ.)

Fang Langford

p. s. Has anyone here actually played Munchausen (even by proxy)?  I might go so far as to describe it as a game where the players play with Director Stance with total abandon.  There are no resolution mechanics at all; the rules exist only to support the competition.  It often naïvely devolves to primitive Narrativism, all in service of a Gamist agenda (the stakes, the challenge, whatever you want to call it; it's all about winning).  Where's the sharing?  When one player speaks, none of the other even 'have characters;' they get to attempt to 'mess you up.'  How well you turn the 'interference' into entertaining narration determines if you win.

[quozl]

If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples.  Can we drop what anything can be drifted to?  It's just a straw man argument underscoring that we must go by a game's text to determine what it's for.  

Fang Langford

I'm not talking about drift when I say Monopoly is a roleplaying game.  I say roleplaying is REQUIRED in order to play Monopoly.  If the players do not assume the role of greedy property barons, the game does not work, is not fun, and falls apart.  The "shared imaginary space" is the world of these property baron crudely represented by the playing board.  

Imagine trying to play Monopoly where you do not assume a "greedy property baron" persona:

"No, I don't want to buy Boardwalk.  I'd rather get an X-box and some games for $400."

"I still got $18 left.  Maybe I'll get a pizza and some videos."

Do you see what I'm trying to say here?  If you don't assume the persona, the game cannot be played.  It makes no sense.

[Ron Edwards]

Damn, Fang, that's the first post in this thread that works for me.

Jonathan, I'm not sure if your agenda here is to receive acknowledgment for your point (i.e. confirmation that we understand it) or to argue that point in a more general sense. It's easy for the latter to transform into the former in a discussion, so I'm kind of concerned about that here.

Best,
Ron

[Sindyr]

qouzl wrote:

Sindyr wrote:

Again, it is simplistic, but perhaps:
1) Let's use the simple definition of role above? (See NOTE in above section re: explicitness and rigorousness)
-Sindyr

We must agree to disagree since I agree with this:

A role is simply a character or persona that is not completely identical to ourselves, that we imagine or consider.

but I do not agree with how you said that playing the wizard in Magic is not a role. It is an imagined persona that is not identical to ourselves, just like when I play Monopoly, I take on an imagined persona not identical to myself, the greedy property baron (who has no setting, no name, no characteristics other than "greedy", but is still a persona different than myself).

There is a significant reason that MtG as is does not count as a role, I think.

The "wizards" that we play are all exactly the same, ie start with the same life points, same number of cards in hand, etc...

The only difference is the deck, which is extrinsic to the character itself.  

I suppose, like any good definition, the concept of "role" might be able to encompass the "wizard" in MtG, if to mentally put yourself in the "wizard's" situation, ie, imagine yourself as the wizard as the events of the game unfold.  That is, if you see the deck of cards as the "character sheet" of the "wizard" to begin with.

For me, that's a bit of a stretch.  I guess that, to me, MtG is not commonly used for role-playing as in "imagine yourself in these situations", and furthermore, the "wizard" characters are all too similar to be thought of as "roles", IMO, but as "wizard units."

This interchange, though, seems to support the simple definition of RPGs I gave above...  and I like that. :)

-Sindyr

[Sindyr]

Let me add that to count as a "role" in the context of the phrase "role playing game", the "role" must be somewhat unique, and not functionally an exact copy of another player's "unit."

And furthermore, board games like monopoly are not rpg's because in both intent and practice, most players of these games generally do not take on a "role" in the way contextually defined in the above messages I have posted.

I think one of the most common features of an RPG is a ruleset that facillitates the taking on of a "role" imaginatively.

-Sindyr

[Sindyr]

Fang, I think that you and I are trying to saying the same thing, more or less.  You come at it from the standpoint of "imaginary space", whereas I come from the standpoint of "role".

However, I think that one entails the other.  Although the word "role" has many meanings, and many shades within, when taken with the context of the phrase "role playing game", I think your concept of "imaginary space" is contained within it's (role's) meaning.

-Sindyr

[ThreeGee]

Hey Fang, et al,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. We can consider Monopoly from the perspective of roleplaying, and we can consider Magic from the perspective of roleplaying, but CRPGs are RPGs, and LARPs are RPGs, by definition. Any definition that does not include CRPGs and LARPs as RPGs is pretentious hand-waving, being dead on arrival. I am willing to accept any definition that anyone cares to propose, as long as it categorizes RPGs as RPGs.

On the other hand, your proposal works for me in terms of tabletop-roleplaying.

Ron, I am dying to know your proposal. As an actual biologist, you must understand taxonomy as well as anyone here.

Later,
Grant

[Sindyr]

Well, if CRPG's and LARP's use the element "role" in the same context as it is used in RPG, then I agree.

[CplFerro]

Dear Mr. Le Joueur/Langford:

Playing a roleplaying game alone is entirely possible.  The only caveat is that only a GM can do it; a player cannot roleplay alone, without a GM, because a GM is defined as he who transforms the imagined situations.

This is something I, and, I'll wager, other GMs, do fairly often; namely, roleplay solo within our gaming world, for the purposes of developing background material.

That this is also describes story writing, should clarify how writing a story, itself is a form of roleplaying, producing a transcript for publication and passive reception.

Authority issues only matter when there are non-GMs present.



Cpl Ferro

[quozl]

Jonathan, I'm not sure if your agenda here is to receive acknowledgment for your point (i.e. confirmation that we understand it) or to argue that point in a more general sense. It's easy for the latter to transform into the former in a discussion, so I'm kind of concerned about that here.

Best,
Ron

I'm looking for confirmation that someone actually understands my point.  I'm not looking for agreement, just comprehension.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jonathan,

That's what I was thinking. So, let's see if I'm getting your point correctly in my mind.

* Ron tries to say Jon's point:
The association of real person to fictional character is the "central node" of the activity called role-playing. In Ron-speak, we're talking about Exploration of Character, particularly in terms of ownership per person.

Thus playing Universalis would not be role-playing except insofar as the "ownership" issue gets established during play (which it does, according to the rules, but not right away).

Question for Jonathan: is GMing role-playing? Especially in the absence of the sort of favorite-villain or special-buddy GM-PC phenomenon?

* End of attempt

Is that close enough for government work?

Best,
Ron

[C. Edwards]

Hey Fang,

I'm of the opinion that the imaginary space need only be shared in the sense that all the participants need be included.  So, I see solo games as being able to fit fully within the role-playing game spectrum.

Fang wrote:

Before I let you go, I need to point out that you can use social contract to drift any ruleset. However, if you accept that into discussion, then there are no examples that can be used. If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples.

"Rpg by design" and "rpg by player fiat (social contract)" are very useful terminology for the categorization of any particular game design, IMO.  As I said in a previous post, many games have physical components that completely usurp the necessity for shared imaginary space (Monopoly, video games) to be accessed during game play.  There is nothing inherent to the design of such games that designates them as rpgs.  Just because a game says "you play the role of a Land Baron" does not automatically constitute the use of shared imaginary space.  So, just for actual categorization of any particular game, I don't see the issue as a straw man.

Other than those two points, I'm in agreement with you.

-Chris

[Valamir]

If it helps anything Jonathan, I definitely understand what you're saying conceptually...I'm just not certain I understand its relation to the definition of a role playing game.

When I play Monopoly I'm not playing "Ralph Mazza", I'm playing "Ralph Mazza the land speculator / real estate developer" (to the extent that Monopoly resembles those activities in the abstract.)

So, ok, I'm playing a "role" of sorts.  Got it...even agree with it up to this point.

But to extend that into "Monopoly is therefor a Role Playing Game" (even if just a little bit) is tantamount to saying.

A Role Playing Game is a game about playing a role...I play a role in Monopoly, therefor Monopoly is a Role Playing Game.  I think as Fang points out defining what an RPG is by the words in the name is something lacks long past the point of applicability.

I mean, college dating is a "game" of sorts...and one in which many definitely play a "role" (the role being that of sensitive caring person who actually cares what you think and isn't just trying to get laid)...is it then a roleplaying game?

So from where I'm sitting I definitely agree with your premise...yup...any time you play a game of any sort you are taking on a "role" pertinent to that game...I disagree with the conclusion.  I don't think its a very useful standard to identify what is an isn't an RPG

(assuming there's any utility to that exercize anyway).

[Sindyr]

Valamir, I think you might be making a contextual error.  Maybe.

There are many definitions of the word "role", and each of those definitions has shading and contextual applications.

I can say that my "role" at the company where I work is Tech Support.
I can say that my "role" in my family is as arbitrator.
I can say that my "role" in Monopoly is as a greedy land baron.
I can say that, as an actor, my "role" in the play is that of King Lear,
I can say that my "role" in the rpg, is Adrian Silber, Paradox Mage.

Each of the five above sentences uses the word "role" in fundamentally different ways.  They are, actually, five different words, all represented by the same sequence of letters, r-o-l-e.

How can you determine which word is being used? By context.

Just like if I say that I am "dusting" the furniture to tidy up, it is very different than to say I am "dusting" the furniture for fingerprints.
In those contexts, the words representing by  "d-u-s-t-i-n-g" have almost opposite meanings.

So, saying that we are playing a role in monopoly and saying that we are playing a role in an rpg is not the same.  It's dangerously similar, but not equal.

Hope this helps.