(This post also appears on RPG Net for a different purpose)

First, I'm supposed to use this time slot to write game design comments for Universalis and instead I'm wasting it here. My apologies, Mike. I did not forget.

You see, I was constantly bothered with this GNS issue and I couldn't tell what it was until today. Today I've read an article called "Out of Dreamland"by Jocelyn Robitaille. Now, what I'm about to say is not to criticize Jocelyn in person - it concerns the whole theory.

I admit it. I have converted to GNS-ism. It took me a month to figure out what the hell it's all about but now I'm convinced. Not only that, I believe that I have become a sort of extremist in my beliefs. I now believe that Ron's GNS essay just puts things in nice and politically-correct words.

Ron says (at least, my impression of what he says): "There are three types of RPG's - Gamism, Simulationsim and Narrativism". I say: "There are three types of games which use role-playing as a major element". There is no such a thing as a 'role playing game' - it is a historical error born from the transition from one type of game to another through the same media. The 'Transactional perspective' given in the Jocelyn's article is exactly the wrong way to go with it.

I mean, Diplomacy an Risk are both 'world-war' boardgames. Does it mean they are the same? Hell no. And anyone who ever played both knows how incredibly diferent they are. After reading Christopher Kubasik's reply on RPG Net it became clear to me - role playing is just a game element, nothing more. Maybe this is why Ron has such a hard time explaining people his theory. Maybe his first words should be: "You have three games. All are wrongfully named RPG's". If someone would say that Monopoly and Clue are boardgames would you say they are the same thing? OK, so they both have a board, pawns and dice, so what? And what about Poker and Bridge? "Of course, they're card games and all card games should be treated the same way". This is wrong.

You have games. Game is defined (by Oxford) as: 'form of play or sport with rules'. That's all there is to it. Each game has different rules and uses different elements to convey different feelings and challenges. Maybe we should all discuss game design theory in general, and not just for 'role playing games'. The GNS article started studying many aspects of game design but it never got further than that. Ron is busy all the time 'defending' his theory when all he's trying to say is: "hey people, before you design a game you have to know what its goal is". That's what GNS is all about - it shows three types of games with totally different goals. And any theory should work with all games in general, not just RPG's. I now understand what Jared A. Sorensen meant when he started the thread 'why your game sucks' over at RPG Net. I've kept that thread because I knew it was talking about the most important thing in games - proper perspective of design.

If it was all up to me, I'd change GNS into completely sepreate games:

Gamism - Adventure Games (historical reasons)
Simulationism - Exploration Games (practical reasons)
Narrativism - Storytelling/Storymaking/etc Games (goal-driven reasons)

I wish that people could see this clearly with RPG's. We have no problem when it's a 'board game' 'card game' or 'ball game'. Why do we have this issue with 'role playing game'? Couldn't it be obvious that role playing is just a game element and not a game goal?

This is why 'universal' or 'generic' GNS RPG's could never work. This is why 'Transactional perspective' wouldn't work. You can't use role playing as an anchor for game design - it is an element. Just like you can't interest Bridge players with Poker just because it's a card game. This isn't an issue of Color or Setting or flavor or style - it's about the objective of the game. "To tell a story" is a very different goal from "To pretend you're someone else" or "To be a hero and defeat a villain".

In addition, GM is not a requisite in RPG's. Game Master is an element. You don't NEED a GM in RPG's. It seems to me that Jocelyn accepts GM as an inseperate part of the game. Although I can't quote this from anywhere, but Ron also seems to ignore this issue (my apologies if otherwise).

There is an old article called "I have no words & I must design" by Greg Costikyan. It addresses everything I talked about in the right proportions. When I read it now, I feel so stupid the way I used to treat it as 'just another interesting article for my archive' - this article is THE article all game designers should look at. The next time I design a game I'm going to hear in my head two things:

1. Jared telling me: "Dammit Joe, you're a game designer, not a politician!" and
2. Greg telling me: "Design your game without prejudice".

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. This post does not come from my head - it's from my heart. It's the way I feel things should be and my intuition tells me that other dissatisfied gamers exist becaue of the same issues I mentioned above.

With utmost respect to all the people mentioned in this post,

Joe Llama

Well, Joe, however from the heart your post was, I'd say it's dead-bang on the mark. I think you are beginning to tease apart game elements that have been unduly glued together for far too long.

Something that's been incubating in my mind is the interesting motility of tools originally thought to be Narrativist, especially Author Stance and Director Stance, and systems for explicitly handling those stances. These turn out to work just dandy in Gamism, as the Donjon tour de force has been demonstrating in actual play time and time again.

This says to me that much of the resistance to "narrativism" as such, and to the GNS model more generally, actually stems from people's acute discomfort with not understanding those tools that actually are portable across modes. I imagine that as these theories gain acceptance, there will be less of "I'm a Gamist" and more of "I like games with a lot of role-playing expressed through Actor and Director stances, and wagering systems to drive those things really float my boat. I don't like being the ref. too much, though, so I prefer if there's a person designated with that role." Bam. That describes preferences in a very clear way that pegs the speaker as Gamist, but the use of the very broad term is not really necessary.

I certainly look forward to gaming in heaven, where these things aren't an issue. :-P

--TQuid

P.S. I think identifying role-playing as a game element is brilliant, and while someone may have mentioned it before, pointing it up as being critically important in thinking about general game design has far-reaching consequences.

joe_llama wrote: Ron says (at least, my impression of what he says): "There are three types of RPG's - Gamism, Simulationsim and Narrativism". I say: "There are three types of games which use role-playing as a major element".

joe_llama wrote: If it was all up to me, I'd change GNS into completely separate games:

Gamism - Adventure Games (historical reasons)
Simulationism - Exploration Games (practical reasons)
Narrativism - Storytelling/Storymaking/etc Games (goal-driven reasons)

joe_llama wrote: Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. This post does not come from my head - it's from my heart. It's the way I feel things should be and my intuition tells me that other dissatisfied gamers exist becaue of the same issues I mentioned above.

Totally off-topic, but I can't resist.

Reading the Costikyan essay, I was struck by the crushing irony in the following words:

Or take Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, which I designed. I could have taken Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons and changed it around, calling swords blasters and the like.

No no no! This is going the wrong way.

Forget about the three GNS renamings. And I don't give a rat's ass about GNS theory or any other theory for that matter. Forget about theory. Forget about everything. Let's talk 'practical'.

You have a game. A game has rules. Rules tell you how to play the game. The rules force players to make decisions. These decisions will eventually lead players to some sort of goal. ANY goal. 'Having fun' is NOT a legitimate goal. All games are about having fun.

Poker is about having fun. Football is about having fun. Monopoly is about having fun. Vampire is about having fun. WYRD is about having fun. Snooker is about having fun. Scrabble is about having fun. Quake is about having fun. Golf is about having fun (although not my kind of fun).

A game has a goal. The rules are there to make the achievement of the goal interesting and challenging. 'Having fun' is the product of the game. I dare you to show me one game that isn't about 'having fun' (and I'm not talking about personal opinion). OK, professional Basketball players are doing it for the money but I'll be damned if they don't like playing it.

Just to be clear, we are talking about ALL games, not just RPG's. And here's the point: There is no such thing as an RPG. Not then, not now, not in a million years. Role playing games are not special and it doesn't take a special kind of people to play them. All of you folks having a hard time finding players - let it be known that you are treading down a doomed path set for you by people in the past.

Games are composed of elements. ALL games. One example of such an element is fortune (dice rolling, card drawing, etc). Another example of such an element is ROLE PLAYING. Don't take my word for it. Role play by definiton (Oxford again) is an 'activity in which a person acts a part'. This means specificly the element of being 'in character' sometimes called Avatarism. Is that all that you do when you play an RPG? Of course not, there are other elements involved. I dare you to show me one game that has only a 'role playing' element. That game could truly be called 'role playing game'.

When people say 'board game' they really mean 'a game in which the board is the most obvious part of the game'. When people say 'card game' they mean 'a game in which cards are the most obvious part in the game'. When people say 'role playing game' they SHOULD mean 'a game in which role playing is the most obvious part of the game'. The fun is over. We can all go to our homes now. RPG's are dead.

It's a wrong use of words. There are no game categories or types. The catogries are just there for convenience. If there are no categories, there is no such thing as a 'transitional' game. Each and every game is a stand-alone. It is unique and cannot be categorized. However, you can recognize the elements which compose a game. If you make an index of the games you know, you can categorize them diffrently every time. No wonder that every time I was looking for a game in some inetrnet index, I would find it under more than one category. Poker and Bridge are under 'cards', but Poker is also under 'Gambling' together with Craps.

Categories are CONVENIENT. They mean a lot to gamer who looks for a specific element. It means nothing to the game designer. You will never catch me again designing a Sim or Nar game because I really don't believe in them. You WILL find me designing games with fortune elements, diplomacy elements, and role playing elements. They will NEVER be called RPG's or any other faulty name. When you read the manual it will simply say: "The game objective is..." or "The goal of the game is..." and never will these blanks be filled with the words "about having fun". Becaue ulitmately, ALL games have a goal.

If your game has no goal then it's not a game. It's a toy. It's a toolkit. My first posts here at the Forge dealt with a system I built called Triad. I liked Triad very much but as a game it was crap. You could play G, N or S with it any way you like. But it was no game - it was a tool for creating games. You had to add something to make it a game - you needed a goal. If Scattershot is anything like it then it's not a game either. This is nothing personal either, I happen to read some very interesting concepts that are in Scattershot. I have to admit they intrigue me. I want to know more about Scattershot. But if it has no goal then it's not a game. Sorry. I'd argue this till my fingers drop.

So what does this all mean? It means that you people should start designing games and stop designing RPG's. You want to include 'role playing' elements? That's cool. But treat it as equal regarding other elements in your game. And of course your game should have a goal, no matter what. It could be 'to tell stories' or 'to simulate a cyberpunk reality'. There are countless goals, all you have to do is pick one.

And if you wanna talk game design theory, do it properly. You have two issues: goals and game elements. Ron's GNS model is an attempt to identify game elements in general. It got mixed up with game goals and categories on the way but his intention was good. There is a lot more to find out about goals and elements and there's no reason to stop looking for such knowledge. You can bash the model all you want or start doing something constructive like identifying game elements (I'm not sure Greg Costikyan covered it all) and looking for new exciting goals for games.

Stop whining about 'the right to choose my way of doing things' or 'the freedom of transition'. This is not politics. These are games, for crying out loud. They have rules to provide challenge and excitement, not just structure. Structure alone gives you a tool. Photoshop let's you process all kinds of images but it's not a game. Quake Worldbuilder let's you create enitre games for Quake but it's not a game on its own. If there was a worldbuilding contest then it would be a game. You have a goal - to win the contest. In short, the central issue of game design is the goal of the game. All rules of the game lead to that goal. Anything else is redundant.

So far I have seen one person actually following this standard and his name is Jared A. Sorensen. You want a lesson in game design, you go see his works and then you'll know what I mean. If only he would share his wisdom with us...

With respect,

Joe Llama

So what you are saying Joe is that:

1) To be a game, a given system (set of rules) must have a stated goal that is unavoidably achieved by following said system.
Example: Sorceror has the stated goal of exploring its Premise (simplified=You're a guy with a demon). Monopoly has the stated goal of attempting to be the "winner" by driving your opponents out of business (bankrupting them). Both of these are games not because the system makes their stated goals possible but because the system makes the stated goals unavoidable.

2)An entity that fell outside the above definition by not having its goal inherently designed into the system would be considered a mechanic. A tool to be used in the achievment of a goal decided upon by the players.
Example: Candy Land is played, whereas The Pool is utilized as a mechanic in pursuit of a goal decided by the players.

Sounds reasonable to me. Hmm, what does that say about GURPS then (just to propagate GURPS comparisons)? This is where my head starts to hurt....

Edited in: I think I've answered my own question. GURPS and The Pool are both in the same boat. One is a simulationist mechanic and the other is a narratavist mechanic. I don't think system exploration is valid as a stated goal for a game.

thickenergy wrote: 1) To be a game, a given system (set of rules) must have a stated goal that is unavoidably achieved by following said system.

thickenergy wrote: 2)An entity that fell outside the above definition by not having its goal inherently designed into the system would be considered a mechanic. A tool to be used in the achievment of a goal decided upon by the players.

thickenergy wrote: Example: Candy Land is played, whereas The Pool is utilized as a mechanic in pursuit of a goal decided by the players.

thickenergy wrote: I think I've answered my own question. GURPS and The Pool are both in the same boat. One is a simulationist mechanic and the other is a narratavist mechanic.

In The Pool James wrote: The Pool by itself is merely a system; an idea for a way to play a game. If you like the concept, apply it to your favorite setting and see how it goes. I can't promise it will work wonders for all genres or types of settings. No game can do that. What The Pool was designed to do was to support a dramatic style of gaming that is very story-driven and very emergent in nature. I hope it does that.

thickenergy wrote: I don't think system exploration is valid as a stated goal for a game.

joe_llama wrote:
You have a game. A game has rules. Rules tell you how to play the game. The rules force players to make decisions. These decisions will eventually lead players to some sort of goal. ANY goal. 'Having fun' is NOT a legitimate goal. All games are about having fun.

A game has a goal. The rules are there to make the achievement of the goal interesting and challenging. 'Having fun' is the product of the game. I dare you to show me one game that isn't about 'having fun' (and I'm not talking about personal opinion). OK, professional Basketball players are doing it for the money but I'll be damned if they don't like playing it.

Just to be clear, we are talking about ALL games, not just RPG's. And here's the point: There is no such thing as an RPG. Not then, not now, not in a

It's a wrong use of words. There are no game categories or types. The catogries are just there for convenience. If there are no categories, there is no such thing as a 'transitional' game. Each and

If your game has no goal then it's not a game. It's a toy. It's a toolkit. My first posts here at the

joe_llama wrote:
I think people are starting to get this. Ironically, this 'new' and 'unorthodox' perspective that we're dealing with here is something that is more simple and practical than the usual high-level

contracycle wrote: Depends what you think a "game" is, dunnit? Is there a distinction between a "game" and a "sport", say?

contracycle wrote: What about a conversation - most people don't think this would constitute a game, but its been demonstrated (to my satisfaction anyway) that many conversations can be considered "games", including by use of the definition offered above.

contracycle wrote: No - the rules are NOT there to make the game fun; the fun is the positive reward administered to the player for their participation.

contracycle wrote: The purpose of the game is to achieve that outrcome - whether or not the participants have fun is entirely incidental.

contracycle wrote: Wrong. Take the distinction between diplomacy and Risk. They have extremely distinct mechnanics, one fortune and one karma. This produces different player behaviours; the processed experience of the karma-heavy game is sufficiently distinct from processed experience of the fortune heavy game, and as a result the two structures appeal to distinct audiences. Probably overlapping audiences, but in most peoples experience, getting tired of one of these games, say, would not necessarily imply being bored of the other; nor does liking one stand in opposition to disliking the other. Their mechanics are different, which means player behaviour is different, which produces different analyses and valuations of them as entertainments.

contracycle wrote: Role-playing is a VERY distinct form. For example...

contracycle wrote: As a method, a physical form, RPG is quite distinct from many, many games, and it is IMO ridiculous to lump them all under one undifferentiated category "game". That tells you nothing and allows you to do nothing.

contracycle wrote: Thats fine. People play games with toys, and with many things that are not toys.

Hi Joe!

First I want you to know, I haven't seen anything offensive so far; just a lot of oversimplification. That was what I wanted to highlight; I never took offense.

For example you started off with:

joe_llama wrote: I admit it. I have converted to GNS-ism. It took me a month to figure out what the hell it's all about but now I'm convinced. Not only that, I believe that I have become a sort of extremist in my beliefs. I now believe that Ron's GNS essay just puts things in nice and politically-correct words.

joe_llama wrote: If it was all up to me, I'd change GNS into completely separate games:

Gamism - Adventure Games (historical reasons)
Simulationism - Exploration Games (practical reasons)
Narrativism - Storytelling/Storymaking/etc Games (goal-driven reasons)

joe_llama wrote: Forget about the three GNS renamings. And I don't give a rat's ass about GNS theory or any other theory for that matter.

joe_llama wrote: There are no game categories or types. The categories are just there for convenience. If there are no categories, there is no such thing as a 'transitional' game. Each and every game is a stand-alone.

joe_llama wrote: You will never catch me again designing a Sim or Nar game because I really don't believe in them.

joe_llama wrote: If Scattershot is anything like it then it's not a game either. This is nothing personal either, I happen to read some very interesting concepts that are in Scattershot. I have to admit they intrigue me. I want to know more about Scattershot. But if it has no goal then it's not a game.

joe_llama wrote: Categories are CONVENIENT. They mean a lot to a gamer who looks for a specific element.

joe_llama wrote: All of this because there really are no 'types' of role playing games.

joe_llama wrote:

contracycle wrote: Thats fine. People play games with toys, and with many things that are not toys.

Oh so very true. But people lack the courage to admit their creation is not a game. More specificly, people are afraid to let go of the 'old' term of RPG and open to this 'new' concept of games having goals and elements (in fact, it's the other way around - the 'old' and 'new', that is). Do you think Fang would admit that his game is not a game but a toy?

joe_llama wrote: You think he would like us to call his creation a toy, with all negative meanings of the word running around in his head? I bet he's preparing a huge flame as we speak to burn this thread completely.

joe_llama wrote: Unfortunately, this is all a big misunderstanding. No one is trying to degrade anyone. Fang is high on my list as one of the most talented designers out there. But he's not making a game. He's making a toolkit FOR games. Is it that bad? On the contrary, with a tool such as Scattershot games could reach high and far. But it's not a game.

Joe, you have just summed up what I was trying to express in my old thread when I first posted up here at the Forge(Gaming goals? ack can't remember it now). Every game has a goal. Sometimes you create the goal for each game, but that is part of it being a game. You can have fun without a game(see a movie, hang out, read a book), but a game is something different. You can have a ball, but once you decide you want to see how far you can throw the ball, how many times you can drop it into a hole, or hit someone with it, you have a goal, and, a game.

Plus, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who can't stand people getting too serious about theory. Yes, let's understand how things work. But more importantly, let's play. Maybe other folks have fun arguing, discussing, etc. I want to play games. That's why I came here. You guys make great games with great ideas. Let's put'em to use.

:)

Chris

Wow, missing my oxygen again or something.

OK, some games are actually toys. Or something like that. Uh, what do I do differently, now? How was I trapped before? Universalis falls into the toy category, I'll bet. Was the problem that I was just deluded when agreeing to label it a game? Perhaps I should try communicating the concepts of the game in a non-written fashion. Ah, whatever method I use, I'm sure my particular biases will be translated, somehow. Guess I'm screwed.

Or, I'm really missing the point of this whole thread. Um, does it have one? Funny, I thought that GNS was about goals. Seems like it to me.

One can carefully analyze games and play them, Chris; the first does nothing to harm the second that I can see. I intend to play Dunjon, Universalis, Dead Meat, 2PAM, and Geek Season this weekend. I'll let you in on a secret, I only wrote so much on The Forge because I can get away with that at work, but I can't play here. Not that I ever have enough particiapants to play all my games; I'd always have some time to post about these things. I guess I find them interesting, or something. And, Ron, King o analysis doesn't seem to have a lack of playing time.

The more I analyze, the more I want to play to test practicalities. Yes, this stuf is all theory. But theory that I, at least, have found very useful in a practical sense from design to actual play. What should we do instead, here at The Forge? Do you doubt my testimony? Well, what can I say to that?

If you're not interested, then why do you read it? Methinks that some here doth protest o'ermuch. Does Clinton have his shotgun to your head again, Chris? Well, I can't let one terrorist prevent me from doing what I feel is valuable research.

Deconstructionists begone!


OK, forgive the silly tone, but there seem to be a lot of words here that just aren't going anywhere. Maybe I am just dumb.

Mike

Le Joueur wrote: I'd call that an oversimplification. As I said, it cuts out a lot of things that have a "role-playing element."

Le Joueur wrote: What I need to know in order to respond is which is it? Are you a GNS convert or have you disposed of it? Have we witnessed an epiphany?

Bankuei wrote: Plus, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who can't stand people getting too serious about theory

Mike Holmes wrote: Or, I'm really missing the point of this whole thread. Um, does it have one?

Mike Holmes wrote: Funny, I thought that GNS was about goals. Seems like it to me.

Joe,

hum...I understand what you mean. But I don't see where you're going. You say that we make categories, witch are artificial, old school, etc.
Well, first that's the way the huaman psyche works. You make categories in order to be able to deal with the mass of information that you receive. It lessen the cognitive charge of your brain.
So, IMHO we NEED categories.

Second. If you decide that in your game, you 'll want to include one particular aspect ; one aspect that will make the difference in the way you choose witch game you play...and if this aspect is the fact of creating and playing a fictional personna witch will be a significant part in the creation of the enjoyment of the game...why not simply name your game a role-playing game ?

Granted, if i want to co-create a story with some friends I don't need a rpg, but when i choose to play an rpg it's because i want to use the fictional personna modality. Otherise I would simply play "Let's write together" (rules, goal, etc.)

So, IMO the de-categorization doesn't solve anything, because you're just saying that we can have fun with games that don't use the "interpretation of a fictional personna (tm)" as a fixed modality. Yes we can.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you want to go deeper in "general game" design, but i just think that simply using goals to make a games insn't enough. You've got some mode of play (cards, discution, dices, ") that define how you treat your subject, how you come close to your goal.

You may have transcended the "fictional personna" stuff, i don't. To me, it's the major element that drives me toward rpgs (not board games, cards games, etc.)

Fabrice.

ps: i don't mean to personnally criticize you, but just to make you notice that "rpg" is just a name given to a certain fixed modality kind of game (just for sheer pleasure of repeting myself :interpretation of a fictional personna (tm) :)

pps: well, this one too came more from the heart than from the mind.

joe_llama wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: What I need to know in order to respond is which is it? Are you a GNS convert or have you disposed of it? Have we witnessed an epiphany?

I'm beyond GNS.

joe_llama wrote: Games are catalogued by people. People tend to overemphasize a certain game element to their like/dislike. So in a way I'm the biggest fan of GNS but would never support or encourage its principles.

joe_llama wrote: Here's the blunt version: The GNS model is on to something but it got stuck in the middle.

joe_llama wrote: We need to let go of the 'old skool' term of 'RPG game design' and start dealing with 'game design'.

joe_llama wrote: We need to investigate this element and we need to do it without messing around with issues that are not specificly concerned with it.

joe_llama wrote: There is too much noise here.

joe_llama wrote: What I'm going to write is aimed personally at Fang but y'all can listen in if you like :)

Fang, we speak the same language.

joe_llama wrote: When it comes to game design, we need to establish some common ground. In the process, we will create TEMPORARY types and categories simply for the sake of better understanding of each other. These concepts could change in time - grow bigger, smaller, or disppear altogether.

little nicky wrote: Well, first that's the way the huaman psyche works. You make categories in order to be able to deal with the mass of information that you receive. It lessen the cognitive charge of your brain.
So, IMHO we NEED categories.

little nicky wrote: Second. If you decide that in your game, you'll want to include one particular aspect ...why not simply name your game a role-playing game ?

little nicky wrote: You may have transcended the "fictional personna" stuff, i don't. To me, it's the major element that drives me toward rpgs (not board games, cards games, etc.)

Le Joueur wrote: Can we please move on?

Le Joueur wrote: Since you may still be in the 'attack it' phase, you may find it difficult to communicate.

Le Joueur wrote: Have you any terminology you care to use to classify anything? (If not, how shall we discuss anything?)

Le Joueur wrote: Agreed. But what other communal languages are present?

Le Joueur wrote: Because of that I realized that I needed to 'blend in' with the natives here. No offense intended, but I do consider role-playing games in a fairly different perspective than is the common parley here.

Le Joueur wrote: The common parley does not support talking about "elements" as separate units, and probably never will. Neither does it support looking at entities with role-playing "elements" as toys either.

Le Joueur wrote: Then stop ranting and stand and deliver! I for one will listen carefully. Go for it.

Le Joueur wrote: Then I guess this means goodbye?

Le Joueur wrote: You seem to grasp the use of the concept of language. I hope you learn the patience for how the language of a community progresses slowly.

Le Joueur wrote: Let's make a clean breast of it, take the "elements" theory over to the so-called RPG theory forum and get 'building.' You first. Go establish some common ground, a few temporary types and categories;

It is a useful distinction to say that role-playing is just one element among many in game design.

However, getting rid of role-playing games as a category because most of them don't have a "goal" ignores the reason why role-playing exists as a category. The terms board-bames, ball-games, card-games, and role-playing games all exist because we humans use these abstractions called words in order to communicate with one another. Every word is a lie, to use hyperbole, because it is just a symbolic representation and useful (or it wouldn't be used, and words do slide in and out of use as they gain and lose usefulness) abstraction that facilitates interactions of human beings. Words also change meaning all the time. Whoever coined each of these categories simply chose the element of the game that distinguished it from other types of games.

So, anyway, most games that do not have a role-playing element have a very specific victory condition. Diplomacy, Hearts and Volleyball all have this in common. I would argue that they don't have goals--they have objectives, they have victory conditions, and those are both types of goals, but the word goal is broader than either of these. It also includes things like "create a complex and interesting society or world", "co-create a compelling story with the following moral conflict".

Roleplaying has elements of gaming and elements of fiction. Fiction does not have victory conditions--unless you count being on the best-seller list as such, or making beaucoup bucks; but I would say that either of those is a side effect of writing. A meta-writing concern. It could be the goal of the author to be financially successful, but it is not a goal per se in the system of writing, if you grant that such exists.

Some roleplaying games do have specific objectives or even victory conditions. Traditional "hack and slash" play has tended to have informal objectives along the lines of "get your character's abilities to godlike levels", "get the best, biggest and baddest weapons you can find", and the classic "get the most treasure". These end up being open ended victory conditions, since there's always more power, better weapons and more treasure. Campaigns often have a specific objectives: kill the dragon, etc.

However, it ain't gotta be that way. And roleplaying lends itself to not having such a narrow objective. Because role-playing, which specifically--to even extend your point--may even be a seperate game element from Authoring, has access to all of the techniques and possibilities of writing. The addition of narrative to a game is no small thing. However, I think it has been seen as such and, finally, this is changing.

A toy is a system of play that has no victory conditions. How do you win playing with a yo-you? You don't, until you bring the yo-yo to a trick competition. A toy may or may not have a goal. However, many sports have goals without having implicit victory conditions. Many sports have the goal of self-improvement in one or more specific ways (ex. running faster, and increasing endurance in running) and the victory condition only comes into play when you introduce the element of competition. An rpg toy may be a system that has not been married to a goal (The Pool etc) or one that has a goal so broad (create a world etc.) that it's not meaningful to call it such. Perhaps we could introduce the concept of rpg sports for systems that have extremely broad goals, but into which objectives and victory conditions can easily be introduced.

There's my 2 cents. I'll be taking names, just send me a private message. :)

--Emily Care

I've studiously avoided replying to this thread so far. I've read it. I've reread it. I've just reread it again, but I've avoided participating because I just don't get it.

I can't follow what you guys are talking about. I get a vague sense but it hasn't come together for me.

This is what I'm hearing. I'm summarizing it this way so that you can provide clarification.


1) All games have goals. Roleplaying Games that have goals are games, Roleplaying Games that don't have goals are toys. Therefor the term Roleplaying game is a misnomer and shouldn't be used.

Question: So what? And I don't mean that to be snarky, but truely so what. What is added to our ability to play or craft RPGs by the distinction between game and toy? What is promoted by inventing yet another new term (or several) to relabel what we call RPGs?


2) You are "beyond GNS". Near as I can tell you aren't disagreeing with GNS but merely find its focus on RPGs to be too narrow. You desire a theory to address games in general.

Problem: From your (Joe) opening remark in GNS I'm not convinced you have it down. You say "Ron says (at least, my impression of what he says): "There are three types of RPG's - Gamism, Simulationsim and Narrativism"." I believe it would be more accurate to say "There are three types of decisions people make when playing RPGs". Its a subtle but profound difference. Finally recognizing the implications of that difference made me realize that much of what people have been argueing about against GNS (myself included) is missing the point by a wide marging. It is what motivated me to write my Primer here in this forum.

Question: What do you hope to gain by broadening the theory to all games in general? How would such a theory be more useful then seperate theories that address each type of game? Now I'm a fan of combining types of games. In my youth I invented a monster board game that combined elements of traditional board games (like Clue and Monopoly) with traditional war games (complete with stacks of cardboard counters) with Role Playing (complete with character sheets and in character dialog), so I can see the value in thinking outside the box in terms of what elements to include in a game design. But I have no idea if this is what you are talking about when you say thinking only of RPGs is too narrow.


3) You want to craft a brand new overarching theory of game design that is not limited to RPGs, and are looking for people to help you do it.

Question: What aspects of games are you trying to analyse...why people play them, how to design them better, what? I get the sense that you want to "build a better mousetrap", but I get no sense of what type of mice you're hoping to catch or way those mice need catching (to extend the metaphor).


Finally, a plea. Can we be a bit more direct and succinct in the points that are being made. Some of these posts are so stream of conciousness and so philosophical in nature that they are quite difficult to follow. Discussions of language is all well and good, but as someone who routinely deals with legal documents, I can tell you that language in general and jargon specifically can obfuscate as well as clarify. There's alot of opacity in this thread.

Fang, I beg you to not take this the wrong way - and you can put it down to my simple American public education - but better than half the time I can't even follow what you're talking about. Its not that I don't understand the syntax...but you often delve into some pretty rarified philosophising that quite frankly leaves me, at least, scratching my head.



A humorous aside: A philosophy major once told me that philosophy was the practice of inventing new ways to communicate that seem more profound because the common man can't understand what you're talking about.





What I'm not seeing currently is what issues regarding the larger definition of game you are not seeing adequately addressed

Nadav,

I am going to call for something here - for you to settle down for a while and decide just what you are asking for. A great deal of your posts are based, by your own admission, on "feelings" - and while that was fine for your initial post, you are beginning to use that kind of rhetoric as a form of response, which is not fine. In order to generate meaningful responses, you're going to have to make sense from the bottom up.

This thread is also starting to show signs of line-by-line responses, which is a fairly bad way to conduct a discussion. Points get missed in favor of a lot of free-associating and misreading. Quoting is fine, but responding as a kind of "wave front" through someone's post is highly discouraged.

Please also consider the following.

1) No one is stuck. You are projecting your own sense of synthesis and re-wording, for your own purposes of understanding, onto the community. If we are to understand your point, it will only occur if you can explain why such a point will improve or help the overall discussion.

You wrote about how the GNS notions are "hindering us." How, exactly? If you are referring to the writings of Jocelyn, he is not being hindered - he is simply not comprehending what's being said (e.g. the confounding of goal/mode with stance). A crucial part of any call to arms - which you are getting rather fervent about - is to demonstrate to your listeners that "something needs to be done." Please elaborate why that is so. Because someone out there doesn't get it does not constitute any reason for me to be concerned.

2) The GNS essay is not a stopping-point. I wrote it so that people could discuss things that mattered within role-playing, not so that people could adopt the essay as "something to believe." In terms of the discussion so far, I too am "beyond" GNS. So are many, many people here. The only reason we continue to discuss it is that the concept is a very powerful door for people to move through, in order to get to the real topics, and as people arrive at the Forge, many of us are willing to help them through the door. You are, I think, mistaking the mentoring performed by (say) me as a fixation on the topic as an end-point in itself.

3) I only use the word "game" as a historical artifact. The use of a more technical meaning of "game," as well as its relation to "toy," "play," and "entertainment," makes for an interesting discussion - but not as a criticism of my use of the term, which is deliberately all-inclusive and not intended to be "boxed" in or out of other categories.

Incidentally, that means that I have never disagreed with Fang about his use of "toy," which seems reasonable to me but also not especially interesting or important (given that my use of "game" is overtly inclusive). Fang tends to take tacit agreement for tacit disagreement, i.e., that lack of praise must be disagreement or dismissal. To some extent that's my fault for not saying, "Fang, I agree," but there is a limit to which a person can do this, especially in dealing with several thousand words at a time.

Similarly, the notion of "elements" of games is a fine one, and I have no objection to anyone discussing them. Nor do I see any reason why I'm obliged to approve in order for people to do so. Why you and Fang seem so eager to embrace the status of "ignored voices in the wilderness" is beyond me. If you want to discuss game elements, do so, and be happy.

4) The focus on self-designated role-playing at the Forge is an aesthetic, not critical choice. I agree with you that elements of GNS are found outside role-playing games (obviously!); I agree with you that role-playing per se is is found outside role-playing games. However, this is a "problem" only if one's goal is to create an uber-theory for role-playing, gambling, competition, and many other forms of social interaction. The Forge isn't set up to address that goal - the goal is, given the existence of things called role-playing games, what terms and goals need to be addressed in order to talk about how much fun they are to play or how effectively they can be designed?

If you want to address that much larger goal, I suggest that you can discuss it here in detail in RPG Theory, or if you think that the GNS-context or role-playing-only context of the Forge is too limiting for that purpose, then on a free website or mailing list of your own. We'll be happy to link to it in the Resources section.

5) I am completely puzzled by your perception that GNS is fundamentally about design goals. It is not. It is about play-goals, of exactly the sort that you are talking about. When you repeat, over and over, "Games have goals. Games are made of elements. Rules are
elements of the game. Games have rules that lead to the goals," you are effectively quoting me, not adding content or nuance to my essay.

You have apparently misunderstood Premise completely, as you associate the term with the Narrativist goals. This boggles me - I have broken down Premise not only in terms of experience (embryonic to developed) but also in terms of goal (which is what GNS "is," basically). Your entire point, in my terms, reads, "We need to talk about Premise!!" I agree. The essay was written so that we could do that, instead of circling about with terms like "balance" or "realism" or "story."

At this point, identifying all our discourse so far as chaotic babble with fortuitous and occasional insight - which is a fair paraphrase of your exact words - borders on insulting, especially because I pinpoint my own, existing discussion of Premise as being precisely what you are looking for in terms of "goals."

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

First of all, let me say that my time is VERY short. I wish I could discuss all these issues in more detail with you and any other memeber at the Forge. I can't do that. I'm in 'read and run' mode :)

I agree with you completely. I will not even get into details. My posts were highly emotional, I was somewhat 'out of control'. It took me a few posts to realize that and when I did, I stopped posting. Many thanks here go to Chris (thickenergy) who saw this coming and notified me. Of course, thanks to you, Ron, for giving a detailed analysis of what is messy and confusing in my words.

I wasn't trying to insult anyone and I'm really sorry if this happened. I was trying to express an idea that's composed of many concepts and terms and they all got tangled up in my head. This is why they come out twisted, confusing and sometimes completely wrong. The best thing for me to do right now is rest and think things over. This could take a while - sorry to disappoint all of you who expected an answer to their questions.

To all Forgefolk, thank you for the tremendous patience you have demonstrated these last few days. This is what I like about the Forge - people stay civilized even when someone freaks out and loses control :) I was being an ass, I know. I just need to cool down a bit.

I hope that my ideas will take a more coherent shape by the end of this week - only then they will be posted in 'RPG Theory'. Until then, I let the issue rest and will not discuss it with anyone. I REALLY want to think about it - who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong?

Thanks again for all your patience.

With respect,

Joe Llama

No worries, Joe. Passion's a fine thing, and it gets all of us wound up and carried away at times. Glad to have you here.

Best,

Blake

Ron Edwards wrote: Incidentally, that means that I have never disagreed with Fang about his use of "toy," which seems reasonable to me but also not especially interesting or important (given that my use of "game" is overtly inclusive). Fang tends to take tacit agreement for tacit disagreement, i.e., that lack of praise must be disagreement or dismissal. To some extent that's my fault for not saying, "Fang, I agree," but there is a limit to which a person can do this, especially in dealing with several thousand words at a time.

Ron Edwards wrote: Similarly, the notion of "elements" of games is a fine one, and I have no objection to anyone discussing them. Nor do I see any reason why I'm obliged to approve in order for people to do so. Why you and Fang seem so eager to embrace the status of "ignored voices in the wilderness" is beyond me. If you want to discuss game elements, do so, and be happy.

Valamir wrote: Fang, I beg you to not take this the wrong way - and you can put it down to my simple American public education - but better than half the time I can't even follow what you're talking about. It's not that I don't understand the syntax...but you often delve into some pretty rarified philosophising that quite frankly leaves me, at least, scratching my head.