This is a question, and various answers that I've run into when talking RPG w/ people. Invariably I run into a wall of "an RPG is supposed to be (blank)."

This discussion will probably run into the GNS discussion, but since I have the shakiest hold on that concept of anyone, including my cat, I decided to post this here. Feel free to start a new thread in the GNS discussion forum if you wish.

The arguement goes something like an RPG requires this or that element or has this or that effect, otherwise it's not really a RPG.

One of the better arguements is actually "being" your character, which I guess is indicitive of simulationism, and it's kind of irrefutable looking at it from the strict definition angle. RPG stands for Role Playing Game. As in playing the role. As in being your character, experienceing the game world as your character. All of that jazz.

I don't personally agree with this since there are many ways to enjoy this activity w/o needing to "be" one's character. This smacks of personal preference and besides, it's impossible. Since "being" one's character will require some form of suspension of disbelief and other allowances on the part of the players for how the game accomplishes this, I think that this as a requirement is so much hogwash.

I have run into other such requirements for an RPG, I'm sure others here can relate similar anecdotes.

A good one is "not enough rules." I know I've gone off on this one before, I don't remember if it was on the Forge or not.

This tends to reflect a "need" for well-defined rules to play. I tend to view it like this:

There are not enough rules.

What do you mean "not enough rules?"

I mean that a game needs more rules.

Why?

Because rules are there to protect the players.

Protect them from what?

From killer GMs from the other players who will take advantages of the rules. To basically keep people from cheating.

Why are you trying to cheat?

Well, I'm not trying to cheat, but other people might.

Why play with someone who would cheat? The point of the game is to experience your character's adventures (the story, if you will)


Oh, yeah. I must've gone on about this, likening RPG rules to programming languages and such (as they were explained to me at one time)

This line of thinking seems to be about designing games for the lowest common denominator. Not so much being accessable for inexperienced player, which is a good thing, as creating rules to try to make players uninterested in playing "right" or "fairly" play correctly. An exercise in futility IMO. If theyaren't interested in really playing the game, the shouldn't play. (Or they should find like-minded people to play with, to be more accurate)

I'm not sure if I had a point anymore...

Anyone?

An RPG is supposed to be a game in which the players all play roles. It really is that simple.

I think you went too far in order to dismiss the 'play a role' thing, by using only the extreme immersive style of play, which I suspect isn't that common. You don't have to 'be' your character in order to play the role of your character. You don't have to immerse yourself in the character's existance. It may help, and it's certainly good to have an idea of what the character should do based on what the world is like. It's kinda like acting--some actors 'become' their characters, others just act like they think the character should act.

So, basically, I think a role playing game is just that. Thinking too hard about the fine points will just screw up the fun of it, which kinda takes away from the 'game' part, since games should be fun. (And getting into what makes a game a game, I think, could be a pain.)

Armin

P.S. My first post, after lurking for ages. Coulda lurked ages more before posting, but I was bored today. Hello.

There are not enough rules.

What do you mean "not enough rules?"

I mean that a game needs more rules.

Why?

Welcome Armin,

You make some good points. And we do probably overanalyze certian things on this site. But I don't find that it's actually done anything to damage anybodies enjoyment of RPGs. It may just often not be very productive. But since we find it interesting, I wouldn't give it up, either. And occasionally something really usefull comes out of these debates.

I think that what GNS has done is to speak to that very question of "What an RPG" should be. Its answer is, different things for different people. As Armin said, whatever it is that makes it fun. And GNS just looks at answering one small part of the question. I think that you take the context of RPG here to mean tabletop. But for others, there is obviously LARP, Collaborative Fiction, Interactive fiction, and probably a whole lot of other ways that a RPG "should" be. And there are other spectra as well, I'm sure.

My suggestion is to revel in the diversity, play lots of different styles with others that like them, have an open mind, and enjoy yourself in general. Trying to limit the activity to one specific thing seems senseless to me. If people have to speak to what is good in RPGs I would suggest at the very least using the term preference, as that is all anyone's opinion on this subject can really be, IMHO.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-12-17 13:37 ]

Jack,

What you're running into is not the term "role-playing," but the term "supposed to." When you're talking with someone and they bring that up, and if you try to deal with it, they have diverted you.

Conversationally, they have changed the subject in a cunning way to prevent further discourse. As soon as "supposed to" comes into it, regarding role-playing, absolutely no insight can be gained.

Why?

Because there is no "supposed to" for the generalized act of role-playing. There is no authority, no charter, no means of enforcement, and no topic for discussion. Armin is correct in observing a feature of the process which is universal, but this is an empirical observation, not a directive.

The phrase plays exactly the same role as, "But it's just a game," which I have pointed out is a diversionary conversational tactic rather than a point of any kind.

When someone uses the phrase in the discussion, you have a choice. You can attempt to addressed what a role-playing game is "supposed to" do, and you'll get into this morass which you have described, in which anything can be claimed and anything can be held dear and nothing may be actually said or confirmed. I don't recommend this.

Or you can nip it in the bud instantly: "There is no 'supposed to' in role-playing," or, "What do you mean by 'supposed to?'" The person will either grasp the insight (possibly after a question or two) and abandon that tactic, or they will become very defensive and upset. It depends on the person's goals regarding talking to you, and upon whether they were using the phrase out of habit or as a means of getting something they want.

Or, for the peaceful among us, you can say, "Hmmm, that's interesting," and perhaps rephrase the whatever-it-is they claimed role-playing is supposed to do as a preference. "So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that you enjoy role-playing when it does X." That way the point they've raised can still be addressed but their tactic of "supposed to" has been negated.

Best,
Ron

You are correct Ron, but I think the intent of the question is still valid. Perhaps the question can be better asked as "What is a Role Playing Game(RPG)?".

I have lurked for a long time on this forum and have come across several intrepertations, and it confuses me that you all can have coherent discussions about a topic that isn't clearly defined or agreed upon to begin with. Unless I missed this thread somewhere along the line.

I'm not talking about GNS here, to me GNS is a model to describe the processes of RPG's not to provide a definition for them. I also believe that it applies beyond Rpg's to most games. But thats another discussion.

So "What is a Role Playing Game(RPG)?" according to members of this forum.

Mario

Turns the question into "What Is a Role-Playing Game To Me?" because I think its still a subjective subject:)

An RPG, to me, is a game in which the players portray fictional/fictionalized characters; they speak, enact, or type/write out their character's or characters' actions & reactions in regards to circumstances or plot produced from a source outside themselves, usually one or more other players. Most RPGs use a structured a)action resolution system and b)character creation guidelines.

To me, a GM is a player with an expanded directorial role but nevertheless a player. You'll notice that I don't demand a lot of criteria to be met- players w/characters who act & react to external circumstances or plot.

Laurel

Excellent idea changing the question, Laurel. I hope it prevents any arguments on what I agree with you is likely to be a fairly subjective subject.

That having been said, I like the general nature of your statement. I probably would generalize it a bit further into something like Ron's definition or Fang's. But yours should stand up under the vast majority of circumstances, IMHO. It does not limit RPGs to table-top, and points out that structure is usual but not absolutely mandatory.

Mike