What makes an RPG?

[Mike Holmes]

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.

Funny, I thought that was exactly what Ralph was saying.

Mike

[Sindyr]

Cool. :)

[quozl]

* 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.

Except for the parts about fictional and ownership, yes.

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

Best,
Ron

Since I don't think ownership has much to do with it, Universalis is an RPG and GMing (in the way that games marketed as RPGs use the term) is roleplaying.

Did that help at all or am I just confusing the issue even more?

[quozl]

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.

Great!  It looks like you've got it exactly.

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).

Well, just to be clear, not any game.  Trivial Pursuit requires no role-playing, for example.

I think roleplaying games include most games out there.  What are marketed as RPGs are just a small subset of all roleplaying games.  

So what can we take from that?  

We can take inspiration from all the games that include roleplaying but are not marketed as RPGs.  Why does the roleplaying aspect of Monopoly feel so natural that most people don't even see it?  How can that apply to the RPG I'm designing?

Does that help?

[Ron Edwards]

I getcha, Jonathan - thanks for the clarification.

I don't agree with you, but then again, I've already said in this thread that I probably don't know what I think about it all. That puts me into the untenable position of probably not agreeing with anyone's assessment, although Fang's post certainly rang my bells.

Grant, all I can say at the moment, re: taxonomy, is that "game" appears to me to be polyphyletic - it's used for a variety of things that are otherwise unconnected, except perhaps at a level that doesn't mean much for our analysis (like "living thing" if we were talking about organismal classification of birds).

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Well, just to be clear, not any game. Trivial Pursuit requires no role-playing, for example.

Oh I don't know about that.  You're playing the role of someone who actually knows stuff...which for some folks I've played with requires alot of acting...:-)

[Ron Edwards]

Ha! Looked it up. The term "game," in biological classification, would be called a nomen nudum, meaning that the organisms in question already have perfectly good names, thank you, and the new name is either redundant, contradictory, or adds no new information.

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

I tried to stay out of this discussion for as long as possible, but I guess I'll chime in. first, a side note that sort of leads into the point I'm about to make:

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.  

not to pick on Sindyr, but I think this definition of role-playing has a few problems, like pretty much all the other definitions floating around in this thread. in fact, I have been making notes on a nethack-like roleplaying game where the characters have names and a few personality traits, but not much in the way of stat, skills, traits, and so on; the characters are pretty much identical, differentiated only by two things: decisions players make in play, and extrinsic objects (magic items and other equipment.

I think Fang had a pretty important point buried in his post:

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.

of course, Fang is here using the capability of drifting Monopoly into a role-playing game as a Bad Thing, because he sees the resulting looseness of the defintion of "role-playing games" as too loose to be meaningful. however, I think people are overlooking the fact that there is no operative definition of "role-playing game". RPGs were never defined in a scientific manner, mainly because no other games were defined that way, either.

the way the definition of "role-playing game" has actually worked, historically, is by example. "games like Dungeons & Dragons". we hate it, but it's true; "role-playing games" are not a distinct category, but are a marketing category, much the same way as literary genres are just publisher's marketing categories.

the definition of "role-playing game" has expanded over the years because, as more role-playing games were added, more examples were available. InSpectres and Trollbabe are nothing at all like Dungeons & Dragons, but they are like other games that are like still other games... and so on, until you reach the mother of all role-playing games.

Monopoly can have role-playing elements, but it's not typically regarded as a role-playing game because it's nothing like Dungeons & Dragons but it's a lot like other board games, specifically the "move around the board in a circle" variety.

the most you can really say about role-playing games as a group is that they tend to share the concept of Exploration (in the GNS sense,) whereas other games don't. Monopoly as it is usually played, even with the robber-baron role, does not have Characters in a Setting giving rise to Situations.

[Sindyr]

I don't think I agree, talysman.

If I am presented with a game, I know that I am quite capable of deciding fairly quickly if it is an RPG or not. This tells me that at some level, I understand the boundaries of what is an RPG and what is not. The only problem before me is to take the intuitive and internally hidden criteria for making that decision, and discover what it is.

A lot of truths are this way.  Any time we feel we "know" and answer, there is usually a reason, that we can exhume from the depths of our thought proceses. Understanding the line that divides an RPG from a non-RPG is no different.

So I am going to stick with the contextual definition of "role" being the cornerstone of what all rpg's share, and all non-rpg's do not.

And actually, exploring this definition is probably the next worthwhile pursuit.

[talysman]

I don't think I agree, talysman.

If I am presented with a game, I know that I am quite capable of deciding fairly quickly if it is an RPG or not. This tells me that at some level, I understand the boundaries of what is an RPG and what is not. The only problem before me is to take the intuitive and internal hidden criteria for making that decision, and discover what it is.

you don't have to agree... but really, the intuitive and internal hidden criteria just might be "how similar is this game to other role-playing games?"

it's the way we identify things like "chair" and "table". anyone can pretty much shoot down any attempt to define "chair" and "table" by coming up with an example of either item that does not fit the definition. that's exactly what is happening in this discussion.

[Sindyr]

I should be more explicit.

Its not just that if I am presented with a game, I know that I am quite capable of deciding fairly quickly if it is an RPG or not.

Its that once I say "Yes", or "No", if someone asks "Why?", I will have reasons to tell them, reasons based not on whether or not it is similar to that (dreaded) rpg D&D, but based on categorical criteria that I note when making the judgement.

Unfortunately, if you ask me now what those criteria are, I can't tell - they are still internal.  But faced with being *employed*, some of them become available for inspection.

Now, if we were all to actually be asked "Is this an RPG" about different games; our answers to the question "Why or why not" would probably solve our conundrum.

[Le Joueur]

Thanks for all the replies, they really warm my oh-so-busy heart.

On to business: all this quibbling about Monopoly isn't refuting my point but making it; the game clearly has a shared "imaginary space."  It also makes my more important point.  As I implied about Freeform games, there are continuums each of us choose comfort zones in, Monopoly is much more structured and abstracted than most traditional games as opposed (in extreme) to Freeform; some people aren't comfortable saying it is a role-playing game, I'm fine with it being so (I haven't played it in a coupla decades so I wasn't too clear on how it worked).

Sindyr is obviously outside of his comfort zone when it comes to games that don't promote character-based play.  I daresay he'll find Universalis to fail his definition of role-playing games.  I don't; it's one of the main reasons I expanded that part of my comfort zone.  I no longer have a problem with role-playing games that don't force you into a character-based "role."  This is purely a difference in comfort zones, not a disagreement of what constitutes the defining qualities of role-playing games.  Personally, I accept Universalis and other non-character-based role-playing games into the definition (I allow more of the continuum).  Sindyr does not; hence his intention that "roles" or character-basis is inherent in all role-playing games (a smaller section of the same continuum).

And Sindyr?  "Imaginary space" isn't my concept, it's the wording used in this thread.  I personally call it Context.  I write games that call for the players to interact "In Context" via characters, but I don't limit all role-playing games to just the kind I write.  And I'll agree with you that you can't have (your restricted, and potentially misleading, term) "roles" without Context, but I'm comfortable with the idea that you can play a role-playing game with Context without forcing "roles" on the participants.  (As pointed out, what about gamemasters?  They do not

have to play roles if they don't choose to; are they not playing role-playing games then?)[/list:u]I never said that CRPGs weren't RPGs, I said that to some people they aren't; it's a matter comfort zone on the continuum of what constitutes sharing.  Same goes for Tunnels & Trolls solo adventures; for some it falls into the comfort zone of role-playing games, for some it doesn't.  (I don't remember anyone challenging LARPGs as not being RPGs; did I miss something?)  To expand the range of examples, I must say that I consider civil war re-enactors as gaming; same is true for something called a "Rendezvous" (a little like a Ren Fest, but based upon the American Voyageur era).  I obviously have a wide comfort zone about self-selection and rules in role-playing games.

As to CplFerro's suggestion, you might be missing the most important point.  If the gamemaster is 'role-playing alone' will they ever share it?  If not, I'd say it's just writing.  If they do share it eventually, then it happens to be the same thing as CRPG writing, in other words delayed gaming.  Again, a slightly wider comfort zone than some accept as role-playing games.  But we have to consider character creation and scenario invention simply another part of role-playing gaming; they happen alone, but they get shared.  Sharing is my point.

Chris seems to agree, although I have to say that Monopoly doesn't so much usurp shared "imaginary space" as it abstracts it.  I believe is still qualifies as being on the frontiers of role-playing games, inside the comfort zone of some, outside of yours.  (The straw man was trying to say that drifted rules represented the games in question.)

As far as the "role" issue goes, I'm not sure how Jonathan can say you must play a role in the game and then go on to say that Universalis and gamemastering are role-playing games, neither require roles (I'm probably reading it wrong).  To add an example, I'd say Once Upon a Time (the card game) is a role-playing game in my comfort zone with the definition, because you have a shared "imaginary space" (add that to Monopoly, as I now understand it) and players interacting about it; I'm fairly certain it falls outside of some people's comfort zones, but I'm fine with that too.  The true test of my point is that with as wide of comfort zone as I have, there aren't any exceptions to cause me problems.  If you add a "role" requirement, Universalis rolls off the plate, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies in many minds (causing the problems with exceptions).  The serious problem with elevating "role" to the primary or sole requirement is all of the things which 'don't count' that come tumbling in.  Like the dating example, without the shared "imaginary space," you're playing a role but not a role-playing game.  (And it is probably clear that you can't say shared "imaginary space" is the same as "game," so using the three words – role...playing...game - with interpretation doesn't seem to work.)

Fang Langford

[ThreeGee]

Hey Fang, Ron,

Fang, I agree with most of your post, but I took you to task over sharing, which requires more than one person. Stick to talking about comfort zones and I am there with you.

Ron, that's priceless. 70-something posts into a thread, and it turns out we are not really saying anything. Actually, I think some of us are exploring what RPGs are not, but could be, but mostly I agree with you, as strange as that may sound.

Later,
Grant

[quozl]

As far as the "role" issue goes, I'm not sure how Jonathan can say you must play a role in the game and then go on to say that Universalis and gamemastering are role-playing games, neither require roles (I'm probably reading it wrong).  

Fang Langford

It's quite simple, actually.  We're defining "role" differently.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Fang,

Fang wrote:

Chris seems to agree, although I have to say that Monopoly doesn't so much usurp shared "imaginary space" as it abstracts it.

This seems to come down to a difference in how we each conceptualize "imaginary space".  From my POV Monopoly takes the abstract imaginary space and solidifies it in the form of board, money, token, cards, etc. making complete play of the game, start to finish, possible without ever entering the "imaginary space".  That's my personal demarcation line for what is and is not an rpg by design.

*edited slightly in an attempt at clarity.

-Chris