What makes an RPG?

[Sindyr]

Fang said:

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).

To apply my previous dictums to it, If I were asked...
Q: Is monopoly an RPG?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: ...well, two reasons, which are perhaps two side of the same coin, strike me right off the bat. One, while it is designed to loosely represent the "feel" of being a land barron, the game in-and-of-itself (without add-on rules) does NOT promote or encourage the playing of "roles" of characters with distinct identities seperate from that of the player. Two, each player is represented by a token, and apart from extrinsic qualities, like land holdings, cash, and location on the board, the player's "units" are all intrinsically identical.  Both of these reason illustrate that there is no role being played here, not in the context of an RPG.

It is hard, and potentially confusing, to be using a word as loose as "role" as a keyword defining the essense of RPGs...  perhaps I should come up with another, to avoid confusion and the necessity to interpret by context which definition of "role" I am referring to.

There is a latin word, scaenicus, which mean a stage-hero, an actor.  This is an appropriate jumping off point for a new word to precisely represent the meaning of playing a role in an RPG.

So, I am going to choose the word "skaynik" (to corrupt the root for common use) to substitute for the word role, as contextually used when speaking of role playing games.

By the way, "as contextually used when speaking of role playing games" is not the definition of skaynik, but a pointer to which of the many definitions of the word "role" I am referring to when I say "skaynik"

Fang continued:

Sindyr is obviously outside of his comfort zone when it comes to games that don't promote character-based play.

I am, eh? (grin)

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).

Personally, I do too. (lol)  I just ordered and received Universalis, and upon reading through it, I am fascinated with the idea behind it - a currency of storytelling power which which to help shape a community effort towards your storytelling goals.

Hey, was that a "Gamist" definition? (heheh)

Anyways, Sindyr does "accept" Universalis as an RPG.  Sure, it may be on the fringes of a what makes an RPG, but it does not stray outside the bounds.

Consider, that in Universalis, you:

[*] Create characters with unique Traits.
[*] Speak in the voice of the characters, usually to other players who respond in the voice of the character that they are currently controlling.
[*] Usually identify and control one character more than others. (Not required by the rules, but apparently a normal way to play)
[*] Chronicle the development of the skayniks of the main characters.[/list:u]
Universalis does indeed appear to be a true RPG.  And this is because the game's rules and bearing encourages the playing of skayniks.  Now, I am not claiming that the skayniks are dedicated one to each player, although in practice, I imagine that happens a fair amount with the main characters.
But, shared or not, Universalis employs skayniks.

By the way, I will admit that the word "skaynik" is not dropping off my tongue easily, but that's probably cause its so new.  If someone else wants to propose a better word for it, and one that is not currently a common english word, I am open to suggestions.

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?)
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.

I think the misleading term here is not role/skaynik, but "comfort zone."  I cannot understand why the idea of a comfort zone has any relevance here.  I think english is in some ways closer to math than art. (Note, I am not saying that English is a math, just that it shares certain similarities.)  And like math, "comfort zone" is irrelevant, to answering the question, "Is A in category B, or not?"

As far as your question about GM's, GM's do play "roles", or skayniks. A lot of them.
And even if they didn't, the GM is facillitating a game in which the players are.  If one of the primary purposes of the game is to help the players play skayniks, then it is an RPG, no matter whether the GM engages in skaynik-play or not.

This whole "comfort-zone" aspect to the discussion seems to me to be a bit of a red herring, a way to limit discussion of the nitty gritty answer to the question.  It implies that this question is like asking if classical music is good or not.  It is not that kind of question.

A more accurate analogy would be, the question, "Are carrots vegetables?" Because those questions have answers.

So does this one.

And "skaynik" seems to be the very keystone of that answer.

[Mike Holmes]

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

You're probably going to have to use Ron's four layered Role Taxonomy, then.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

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.

That's a good point.  Now we're talking about a different way of addressing a continuum; it ranges from 'this is no more than available to play' to 'this is always in play.'  I tend towards the 'if it's available, it counts' side of things, so Monopoly is a role-playing game to me.  Like I've said with the whole continuum/comfort zones, opinions differ.

I guess this is an important point that might take this conversation in a further constructive direction.  Since we can identify that our opinions differ in each continuum, can we at least identify the continuums that are the criteria each of us uses to judge?  I'll start.

I'll begin with four:

Number of Players

My comfort zone requires at least two, not necessarily playing at the same time (notice how this includes

Die Profundis [sp]?).[/list:u]
Sharing

My comfort zone requires that the play of a player affects the play of another and that every players' play is affected by someone.  (This draws a very fine line

between some Computer/Console Role-Playing Games; if it doesn't matter which phrase you choose for your character to say, the response is identical for all choices, then it isn't a role-playing game.)  This includes many choose-your-path books and some CRPGs (but not all).[/list:u]
Context

My comfort zone requires at least some aspect of "imaginary space" to be present or available.  Sure you can play completely with 'token style' with as abstracted a game as Monopoly, but if you begin to assess the 'human factor' (guessing the actions of your opponents based upon either human nature or your understanding of the content of their character) you are engaging in the Context of the game.[/list:u]

"Roles"

It is outside my comfort zone to absolutely require them under my understanding of the word.  If

Universalis has roles by some other definition, even when you don't use that gimmick (or if it is meant that they are merely 'available'), I can understand (but not agree with) the 'tighter' comfort zone of others.[/list:u][/list:u]Now can we have a substantive discussion of "What makes a Role-Playing Game" by acknowledging our comfort zones and making note of the continuums that are used by all of us to judge?

Fang Langford

[CplFerro]

Dear Mr. Langford:

In my RPG analysis, I concluded that ecstatic religious rites, standup performances like flirting and improv comedy, published-style RPGs, and, now, writing are all role-playing games, sharing a common structure, and only differing cosmetically.

Thus, ecstatic rites tend toward total psychic immersion, while published-style games and standup performances emphasis different sets of traditional fetishes.  Solo writing amounts to roleplaying that isn't shared, then.

Thanks for bringing that up; I'd missed it.



Cpl Ferro

[SrGrvsaLot]

Actually, this discussion reminds me a lot of Wittgensteien's classic discussion of games (which he used as a metaphor for language in general). The definition of "role-playing game" (or any word, for that matter) is nebulous. We determine whether something is a role-playing game by comparing it to certain paradigmatic cases (like, D&D, for instance). Thus, any definition you choose will either be so narrow as to exclude things that should be considered role-playing games, or so broad as to include things that shouldn't be considered-role playing games. That's just the nature of language (try defining the word "red" you'll undoubtably run into trouble and disagreement when you look at colors that are near-orange and near-purple).

[Le Joueur]

Hey Sindyr,

Good to hear you thinking; I believe you've taught me something.  But first...

Monopoly

First of all, I think it's clear that Monopoly does promote skayniks, just that they do not have 'identities.'  As I pointed out earlier, the minute you attempt to assess what your opponent is 'up to,' you've begun transacting in skayniks.  That everything is treated in dollars and not chits forces it to be however degenerate of an "imaginary space."  That means, unless you play the game in spite of the other players, you are using skayniks.

And that's my problem.

No matter how you reappoint the terminology, you can't seem to escape the fact that as you have it, it applies to a great many things outside of role-playing games (unless you make it circular, like saying "Skayniks are the 'roles' used in role-playing games").  You are dealing with 'money-holders' with whom you must transact to deprive them of their money in ways that are not philosophically different than 'real' money transactions (buying, selling, renting, billing...).  Because of the abstract nature of the shared "imaginary space," they are skayniks.  Just because they don't have independent names and identities does not mean they are not as taken on by the players.  (The same is true when the gamemaster portrays 'the clerk' at a imaginary store as nothing more.)

And you are right about the analog between our points; we are talking about the same thing.  That would be interface between participants and the shared "imaginary space."  Your idea is that this can be accorded by some degenerate use of the concept of "roles" rather than focusing on the 'field of interaction' is what I find cumbersome and confusing.

I don't think you are taking my inclusion of Universalis or gamemaster to the full degree it is meant.  Certainly both afford the use of skayniks, but neither requires it.  A player in Universalis is not required to create or make use of skayniks.  A gamemaster can easily run completely absent of skayniks.  Try this thought experiment: the game is post-apocalyptic and there are only two survivors of mankind (a man and a woman who said she wouldn't date him if he were the last man on earth, for example).  If there are five players, what skayniks do any of the others take on?  All non-player characters are dead (and we'll leave out flashbacks for the sake of example).  Does the gamemaster have the wind, the sunset, birds, and animals as skayniks?  If you degenerate the definition of skayniks that far, it's nigh meaningless.

I have a distinct problem with your implication in Universalis that one "[identifies] and control one character more than others."  As that is not required by the game (as I understand it), so you are drifting the rules away from what is given.  As you can do exactly the same with Monopoly, I stand that you must reject (saying that drift beyond the rules doesn't count) or accept (saying that drift from the rules does count) both examples as role-playing games.  This isn't a matter of 'what you imagine' (imagination isn't terribly inherently precise) unless you want to retract the idea the English trends more towards the accuracy of mathematics (there is no 'what you imagine' in mathematics).  Besides, we aren't discussion language; there isn't language for what we're discussing.  If anything, we are discussing philosophy (which has no absolutes).

Comfort Zones

All we have are our opinions.

I say there are no "roles."
You say I go too far.
I point out that I've exceeded your comfort zone

with my opinion.[/list:u]Here I am pointing out that "roles" is a continuum common to both our opinions even though our comfort zones there differ.

The concept of a comfort zone has every relevance here.  What we are doing is discussing our opinions.  Yours is that skayniks is a necessary ingredient in role-playing games, mine is that it isn't; neither is empirically true.  Doesn't my implication that skayniks are unnecessary make you uncomfortable?  Despite my intention to write in as dry and emotionless of tone (up to this paragraph at least) as I can, haven't you been reading it as an attack on your ideas?

That is far from my intent.

I accept that you include skayniks, "roles," or whatever you want to call the interaction between player and shared "imaginary space."  It's not at issue.  I reject it because I am not comfortable with the other implications that these terms carry, as 'baggage,' into any discussion of role-playing games.  You will note however, that I go out of my way including it in the list of continuums that are used to judge role-playing games (and include my own opinion, my comfort zone, none the less).  This means I do not reject your ideas; I accept them and disagree.  I do not intend on changing your mind nor expect mine changed; that's why I pointed out each of us has our own comfort zones.  I can't imagine saying that each has their own opinions and that we should look to what continuums these reside upon being confusing in the least.

Your classic music analogy offers a great example of the problem.

It implies that this question is like asking if classical music is good or not.  It is not that kind of question.

No, you're right, it isn't.  What we're discussing is whether it's classical or not.  And I'm sorry, there is no empirical answer to that one; no mathematically precise "Is A in category B, or not?" type of criteria.

GM's do play "roles", or skayniks. A lot of them.  And even if they didn't, the GM is facilitating a game in which the players are.

Now, if you want to declare that the mere act of facilitating the use of skayniks is included in the realm of role-playing gaming by itself, then I fail to see how sharing the "imaginary space" isn't a more simple and clearer way of explaining it.

And then the problem I have with this definition:

...[If] one of the primary purposes of the game is to help the players play skayniks, then it is an RPG...

Or a play, or a psychotherapy session, or a customer service training.  See that's the other problem of using skayniks exclusively.  Even if you include shared "imaginary space" these still count as much as examples such as Once Upon a Time, Universalis, and Monopoly.

In fact, this makes me realize an important point I've left out.  (And a doozy, too.)  That would be the continuum of the intent of play.  Sure, 'to have fun' is an easy one, one that everyone probably agrees with, but what about these examples?  I'm not comfortable calling it a role-playing game if the whole intent is teaching or learning or performing (no matter how fun those are).  I can imagine someone could have the opinion that these are role-playing games, but that's outside my comfort zone (in other words, it differs from my opinion, but I accept it).

Does that make sense?

Fang Langford

[Sindyr]

Fang, that was a good response, with a lot of interesting ideas.  Let me think about them for a bit, and I will reply.

Hmm...

[Mike Holmes]

Just to be clear on the Universalis points, and why calling it a RPG might be contentious:

Create characters with unique Traits.

Yes, if you include things like Countries and Spacecraft as potential "characters". That is, nobody has to play anything like a sentient creature to play Universalis.

Speak in the voice of the characters, usually to other players who respond in the voice of the character that they are currently controlling.

Countries don't have voices per se. But they can speak with other than words. So, yes, you control the actions of such entities, but I've played whole games where nobody ever did any dialog whatsoever, and some where no actions of a single individual thinking being were directly addressed.

"France invades Switerland!"

"Challenge! Switzerland is neutral!"

Usually identify and control one character more than others. (Not required by the rules, but apparently a normal way to play)

"A" normal way, yes, but not at all required. And, in fact, rarely the way it works out, IME. Usually you end up playing one character one scene, and then another the next, and then making a third in the third scene.

So one definitely can play Universalis as an RPG (we even have posted Gimmicks for Player Character rules on the site), but the rules don't require it at all. Much as monopol does not require you to "role-play". Completely optional.

Chronicle the development of the skayniks of the main characters.

If you define even a single Conflict as "developement" then I am forced to agree. Because the one thing that has to happen to have Universalis play is that a Scene has to be framed, thus creating at least one Component, and, for the definition of Story to be achieved in some way, a single Conflict has to occur.

Thus an entire game of Universalis could go:

Scene: Location: Library
Time: Night
There is a Component called "Book" there. Player passes.
Book is opened violently.
Player buys one die for "violent opening" complication. Passes.
Controller of Book activates it's name for one. Passes.
Player with Violent rolls a 1, and Controller of Book rolls 7.
Player controlling "violent" pool narrates "Book is torn at the spine giving it Damaged 1"
Player of Book narrates, "Fact: some pages fall on the floor revealing the true nature of the universe"
Close Scene

There, a complete game on Universalis (and an example of micro-fiction, as well!). Was that an example of a Role-playing game being played?

Mike

[quozl]

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

You're probably going to have to use Ron's four layered Role Taxonomy, then.

Mike

Can I get a link?  I seem to recall it but can't find it just now.

[Thierry Michel]

Or a play, or a psychotherapy session, or a customer service training

But playing a role here is just the mean, not the end. In improvised theatre the end is still to entertain *the audience* (if participants have fun but not spectators it's not a success whereas the canonical GM advice is "if you and your players are having fun").

So in these cases people are "playing a role" but not "playing".

[CplFerro]

Dear SrGrvsaLot:

The nebulous nature of red is precisely why, for the purposes of establishing its truth, a Platonic conception of "redness" is indispensable.  For regardless of our classificatory trouble, red exists, even if the object my mind associates it with does not.

Let's ask something similar:  What is life?  It obviously subsumes abiotic action, like chemical action and so on, but it does things which the abiotic does not do.  Life (and by implication, anything at all) is simply not definable, in sensory terms. And yet life exists.

If there is truth, it must be knowable to be relevant, and, so, we must be able to define the difference between life and non-life, or red and non-red, and so on, to know them. We can only do this in terms of principles, defining life as a particular /intent/ in nature, just as light has its own /intent/ as shown when it bends when moving from one medium to another in order to take the route of least time.  The universe is so constructed as to obey these intentions.

So, to be discussed in terms of truth, the quality of redness must be such an intent, associated, like all other qualities like bigness, smallness, hardness, etc., with the soul itself, rather than any particular sense-object.

Then, I ask what the intent or principle of roleplaying games are, as this thread at least implicitly proposes that they have one.  It must be the "spirit of the game", which I define here, in terms of the common gaming structure I've discovered:

Spirit of the Game: The principle employed by the GM, when choosing between options of transformation.  It is an amalgam of the GM's knowledge of real physical principles, /including the interacting principles of personality characteristic in the participants themselves/,

(1)   as they relate to evoking desirable spiritual states within the context of the game manifold, and

(2)   as they relate to the participants' expectations regarding, preferences of, and faith in the game mechanics.

When hunting for RPGs, then, one looks for whether the activity in question contains that sort of principle of action.  Denying it exists for fault of language, is to misunderstand the nature of principles entirely, as they can never be defined in terms of axioms.  Language at best serves as a metaphor for the principle involved.



Cpl Ferro

[Le Joueur]

Thanks for adding this CplFerro (is that short for Corporal Ferro?)

And while I enjoy a discussion of truth and epistomology as much as the next philosopher, we may be getting a bit far from the thread.

This does score on the target though:

Spirit of the Game: The principle employed by the GM, when choosing between options of transformation.  It is an amalgam of the GM's knowledge of real physical principles, including the interacting principles of personality characteristic in the participants themselves,

One question: what about games that are functionally without a gamemaster?  (Some LARPGs do this trick very well.)  Are we talking about one or another of those infamous "continuums?"  Perhaps 'has a gamemaster' is one of them or 'has a spiritual center to follow?'  The latter, I'm inclined to have a wide tolerance for (hoping that all elements in a game point it at role-playing gamingness).  For the former, I'm unconvinced it is a requirement.

Fang Langford

p. s. Thierry, I think I covered that with the "intent" continuum; is play 'intended' to be the "end" or not.  A voyaguer-style "Rendezvous" fits this to a T; they intend just to play, have "roles," but are very weak on shared "imaginary space" going a bit beyond the LARPG extreme (of one-to-one physical analog).  Some Society for Creative Anachromism groups have even more shared "imaginary space" are they role-playing games?  I dunno.

[Walt Freitag]

In an old thread I tried to form a definition of "game." That effort came to naught when I realized that any definition would have to cover two very different things: a game as a set of rules and/or equipment for play (game-object), and a game as an actual episode of play (game-event).

We're running into the exact same problem here. Even if we were able to identify game-events as role-playing or non role-playing game-events with certainty (say, by such characteristics as shared imaginative space, role individuality, and others discussed here), we then have to make the rather arbitrary decision whether or not the game-object (such as Monopoly or Universalis) is a role-playing game. That is, we must do so if we want to be able to say things like "Monopoly (or whatever) is/is not a role playing game" which by default are usually understood to refer to the game-object.

Sounds rather hopeless to me. It's pretty clear that "Game-object X is a role-playing game if every game-event using game-object X must always be a role playing game" is way too exclusive and "Game-object X is not a role-playing game if no game-event using game-object X can ever be a role playing game" is way too inclusive. Any more reasonable division is going to be a judgment call, or an estimation of actual play statistics that are unlikely to ever be available.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Can I get a link?  I seem to recall it but can't find it just now.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2802

[quozl]

Can I get a link?  I seem to recall it but can't find it just now.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2802

It seems that I'm describing layer 1 roles but it doesn't quite jibe with me as I think there's something missing from the description.  Maybe I'm describing a layer between 1 and 2.  I'm going to have to turn this over a few times in my head.