Well, now that Ralph has let the genie out of the bottle, I'll ask the question.

If you don't have Player Characters (or a GM, or a traditional resolution system, or any of the other things that Universalis does without), is it still a role-playing game?


I think that the phrase Storytelling Game (I think that Paul may have first suggested that), might be more accurate. But it does satisfy Ron's description of being Exploratory, certainly. I think that the answer may be somewhat subjective for each, unfortunately.

The next question is, does it matter? More precisely, how much do you lose by losing PCs? Interestingly, there was a call on one of the other threads for getting rid of Avatarism. Well, we have done that and more. But is it still all good?

If Universalis is not an RPG, are we discussing it in the right forum here? As is says above, The Forge is "The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games". Well, have we stepped outside of that boundary, and if so, by how far? I certainly hope we can stay, especially because, well, where else could we go? It seems that even if it is not an RPG, it is close enough that only the skills of RPG players are going to be useful in developing the game.

Mike

Hey,

For my money, it's a role-playing game. Not much of an argument, I know, in rhetorical terms - but in terms of publishing, perhaps money is what we should be talking about.

Do you really see any issue with someone saying "But it's not really an RPG!" I mean, in terms of a customer or potential user? It seems to me that such a phrase would be used as a sort of retaliatory blow by someone who doesn't want to play such a game in the first place. I don't see such a thing as an issue, in any way - no one has to play the thing after all, and if they don't want to, who really cares what phrases are hurled, if other people exist who do?

Best,
Ron

Well, Ron, that's always been my argument, too.

But it still leaves questions. Like what to call it in advertising? If we don't label it as an RPG, then nobody can use the specious "It's not an RPG!" argument (OTOH, we might miss out on some accidental sales, hmmm...). Also, there is the idea that if it's not an RPG that some RPG theory will not apply to it. Lot's of practical stuff.

As for the game's potential popularity, I am optimistic from the success of playtesting so far. I like it at least. :-)

Mike

Since we are going to do away with PCs, this leaves us with some options. First, we can include the rules that we have come up with as Add-Ons. This would allow players to re-introduce (as it were) PCs into the game at they desire.

Another option would be to create another entire system that uses PCs.

Or, the game could be so much better without PCs that possibly we should just sscrap any mention of them entirely.

Thoughts?

Mike

Yeah.

Hold on there, Tex, was there some mention of scrapping PCs? I'm puzzled, 'cause the version I read allowed for, and to my reading even encouraged, "scaling down" to PC situations of a semi-traditional sort as play proceeded.

It's pretty hard to pin down a critical take on something when it keeps shifting during development. What's this PC deal? And is it a done deal, or one of these floofy, "Um, what do you think" issues batted around between the authors?

Best,
Ron

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was refering to Ralph's mention in his portion of the "Welcome" announcement, that the current version (4.0) that he is writing will not include Player Characters. This will probably not be the last version, but right now were pretty set on the general concept.

Does that change your position? (uh-oh)

Mike

I'm not sure yet. It might ... although retaining the Add-On idea would keep it squarely in my (admittedly-not-very-profound) range for the definition. All my points about "what people say" still apply even if you have no PCs, anyway.

Let's take a look at some videotape. Is Baron von Munchausen a player-character in the game of that name? Or are the pre-generated characters in Pantheon (who are basically playing-pieces not that much different from Colonel Mustard)?

Arguably, Once Upon a Time and Slasher, two competitive card games, are so close to role-playing that one little lean to one side brings'em in the fold. I tend to think not, but they're mighty mighty close to my (not profound) borderline.

Given that sort of ambiguity, I don't think you have much to worry about. Again, just in case I'm not being clear, I think you should concentrate all of your effort on attracting those who will be likely to enjoy the activity you're selling, and pay no whit of attention to those who are unlikely to do so, especially regarding what they "might say."

Best,
Ron

It seems to me that there is a grey area between rpgs and storytelling games. Justin Bacon (of rpg.net fame and now beyond) argues strongly whenever this comes up that games like De Profundis and Baron Munchausen are rpgs and that any definition which excluded them would also exclude DnD. I'm not so sure of that, but nor am I sure it matters much.

I haven't seen the new (sans pc) version yet, practically speaking however some players will inevitably do more with some characters in game than others. If Grizlak the Goblin is an entity created by me and used by me in the story, and the other players generally leave Grizlak alone because they want to see what I'm doing with him, for all extents and purposes I am roleplaying. I am playing the role of Grizlak (whenever I bring him into the story). Not as a pc as such, but more as an npc principally controlled by me (to use conventional rpg parlance).

When I gm, I am roleplaying even though I have no specific character of my own. Sometimes I get very fond of characters I create as GM, they take on a life of their own and I become interested in their exploits. They remain subordinate to the overall story, however, as npcs should not supplant pcs. This subordination does not mean I am not roleplaying them, merely that their progress and development as characters is not my principal goal.

This seems to me what is happening here, I still roleplay characters it's just that the development and progress of those characters is no longer my principal goal.

Thoughts?

Thats the why I view it Balbinus.

Version 4.0 has eliminated the Player Character from the game, not characters altogether. You just pick and choose which characters you want to roleplay at that particular time. While it probably makes immersion all but impossible, I would still call it playing the role.