Hello, I'm a newbeee and I wondered a short time in which forum I could put this thing...... Well, in case I made a mistake, let me know.

Here's the point : RPG is hard to define, but that's perfectly logical for such an "odd" game that conception changes (or "could change") with every new player.
So, can we define any limit, any groundmark that can allow us to say "after this point, it's no more RPG but something else" ?

To me, RPG is "leisure", but I once met a guy who was paid for game mastering and found it "normal"; I often played without any dice/charactersheet/rule (only consistentness* and honesty); I played "multi-table" games, played at one table with 2 GM, played by mail, considered RPG like a narrative experience or a "makebelieve" play-ground, met MUD's users arguing on "roleplay", a frined of mine is his 5 years old children's GM, "narative" games often use small "games in the game" (the sentence you have to say in "Dying Earth", the "description overbid" in Feng Shui, etc...), the most often suitable sentence in RPG stay "As long as you have fun from it that's cool..." (but it's true for many things, including fishing and sex)...

So, is there any limits to RPG ?

By limit are you asking to define the form of roleplaying?

Hello Wenlock, and welcome to the Forge!

(Jack, that's a failed courtesy roll. C'mon, man.)

We've had a lot of discussions here about whether role-playing can be defined, and how it might be. Personally, I tend to stick with descriptive categories, rather than definitions, but some other people are fairly happy with their own definition-statements.

Can someone provide a list of links for "define role-playing" threads, please? This is a legitimate inquiry and deserves our best attention.

Best,
Ron

Hi Wenlock,

There are lots of things that RPG's tend to have with them. It's important to be careful not to think all of them are important. For example, one doesn't define a car by it having fuzzy dice and go fast stripes. Likewise, the 'fuzzy dice and go fast stripes' of roleplay don't need to be there, whatever they happen to be.

Here's the most recent definition link, which has some good thoughts and more informative links inside: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9793

I'll supply a brief suggestion on it myself. One strong element of Roleplay is being presented with a set of limited choices provided from an outside source (typically human) and then making choices, which will present character (presenting to just the chooser or himself and others, doesn't matter).

And by limited, I mean any number of choices which isn't unlimmited in amount, high or low (though typically its quite low...eg, those choices a human might have). Limited is important, because with infinite choice, expressing character is quite hard and perhaps impossible. That's why the outside source is also important, it cuts the choices considerably, removing it from daydreaming.

O.K. I maybe continuing the never ending story hear but…

Of the various defintions of a Role Playing Game at Noon's thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9793 none of them seem to include the obvious: "telling of a story".

I don't know what a good definition would be but I think it would have to include "the telling of a story" or “controlling characters in a story” in it. Isn't this the main reason why we game?

At least this would eliminate suggestions that monopoly, chess etc... are Role Playing Games.

Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro wrote: O.K. I maybe continuing the never ending story hear but…

Of the various defintions of a Role Playing Game at Noon's thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9793 none of them seem to include the obvious: "telling of a story".

I don't know what a good definition would be but I think it would have to include "the telling of a story" or “controlling characters in a story” in it. Isn't this the main reason why we game?

At least this would eliminate suggestions that monopoly, chess etc... are Role Playing Games.

Story is a problematic term in roleplaying. The dictionary defines it as a series of events related in a narrative, but this definition is unsatisfying. If that's all a story is, then why is Jaws a good story but Jaws II not as good, Jaws III worse than Jaws II, and Jaws the Revenge utter crap?

My research tells me there is something more to story than just relating a series of events. Robet McKee refers to this as a good story well told, or just story for short, although GSWT may be a term worth hanging on to.

However, not everyone believes that a story is the puropose of roleplaying. They use something that looks like a story, but it is not a story. Not a good story well told at least not without some judicious editing, usually requiring leaving out things that may have taken hours of play time.

Am i aiming to define the "form" of RPG ?
Yes, indeed, but not only the different "shapes" RPG can take but, in a kind of "reverse-engeineering", to define the core of RPG by searching for his limits.
Or maybe, discover this core himself can take different shapes.

I'll go and read the thread you proposed, and then come to see if I can make my question clearer. :)

Well, now I've read.
It's been very usefull, not only for it's giving me some specific english RPG's vocabulary but also for the "shape of mind" those threads show.

Most of you seem to agree with the idea that RPG can't really be "concretely" defined. I do, too.
But I'm trying to find, maybe, some concrete "frontiers" to RPG.

I've read about "shared imaginary space" : well, I agree it's one of the RPG basic needs, but you can share an "imaginary space" without playing any way : while arguing about Star Trek saga (the universe it describe, exchanging points of view about it's story's meaning or characters and so on), you're already sharing such a thing.
That's why I think "shared imaginary space" is part of definition, but isn't by itself sufficient.

French language define a "game" as "something you do only for the fun you take from it", that's mean game can't have any other goal than "leisure", or it's no longer "just a game".
But can't a RPG deal with a "message" (in the politic/psylosophic meanning), can't it support a cause and in spite stay a RP game ?
Isn't RPG an imaginary way of practicing your "free will" ?
Can't we play RPG for any other goal than "leisure" ("knowing yourself" and all that stuffs, sharing your mind -in the very first meaning, pretext for sharing time with friends...) ?
Or arent' those goal's part of the leisure ?

So, I'm trying to make my question more precise by spliting it in several ones (only 5 for the moment) :
-Does practicing RPG for money kills the "game" part ?
-Is leisure the only possible goal for RPG ?
-Can we count (and, by the way, limitate) the numerous forms of RPG ?
-Is there any "bad way" to consider RPG, a state of mind or a specific maner to play it that can be pointed out like a "wrong way" ?
-Does "roleplaying" means "performing it for other players" ? Logically, can you roleplay alone ?

Wenlock wrote: So, I'm trying to make my question more precise by spliting it in several ones (only 5 for the moment) :
-Does practicing RPG for money kills the "game" part ?
-Is leisure the only possible goal for RPG ?
-Can we count (and, by the way, limitate) the numerous forms of RPG ?
-Is there any "bad way" to consider RPG, a state of mind or a specific maner to play it that can be pointed out like a "wrong way" ?
-Does "roleplaying" means "performing it for other players" ? Logically, can you roleplay alone ?

Could you be more precise and specific, please ?

Welcome, Wenlock.

Wenlock wrote: I've read about "shared imaginary space" : well, I agree it's one of the RPG basic needs, but you can share an "imaginary space" without playing any way : while arguing about Star Trek saga (the universe it describe, exchanging points of view about it's story's meaning or characters and so on), you're already sharing such a thing.
That's why I think "shared imaginary space" is part of definition, but isn't by itself sufficient.

where I wrote: I'd say that role playing games are probably best defined thus:

The mutual creation of events within a shared imaginary space through manipulation of imagined elements.

Thanks. :)

M. J. Young wrote:
The one doubt I have about this is that you can create events within a shared imaginary space through manipulation of the imagined elements in collaborative writing. The objection to this would be that collaborative writing is distinct from role playing. I'm not entirely persuaded that it is; it may be that collaborative writing is a specific application of role playing not usually considered.

Well, there's a whole bevy of activities that are pretty objectively not roleplaying, so in that sense, there are limits to RPGs. For example, playing soccer is not role-playing. The limit question comes up, I think, once you start working in shared imaginary space in whichever context. As a starting point, though, I think you could say that if you are not involved in creating or manipulating a shared imaginary space, then you are not roleplaying.

Thank you for your time,
Nathan P.

Wenlock wrote: But, that wasn't actually my point and I'm still asking : is thre any "objective" limit to RPG ?

Hu. It's hard to expresse in a language that's not really mine, but, in fact, I'm looking for the edge, the "borderline", not for what is obviously far from this border (cookery, hikebana and dance on ice haven't any kind of common point with RPG).
In fact, I asked 5 precise questions just in order to give a starting point to this discussion.

I'll add just one new that M.J.Young inspired me : is "live action RPG" still RPG (cause youve'got, sometimes, to get out of your chair, have a physical activity and so on) ?