Topic: What is roleplayable ?
Started by: Thierry Michel
Started on: 12/13/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 12/13/2002 at 11:28am, Thierry Michel wrote:
What is roleplayable ?
This is my first post here, and I'm still trying to understand the terminology and theories that you're using.
However, I can't seem to find a thread on what, for want of a better word, "models" are appropriate for rpgs. There are some discussions about genres, and the need (or not) for mainstream games, but it seems the uncontested "model" for games is movies/tv. Is a role-playing session an obligatory interactive movie ?
[ Note that I like rpgs as they are, but it's a bit as if all history books were flashy historical novels]
Thanks for pointing me to relevant threads if that has already been discussed to death (which is very likely).
On 12/13/2002 at 1:59pm, quozl wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
First, welcome to The Forge!
I'm not sure if I understand the question but let me try. You ask what roleplaying is modeled on and what is roleplayable and then give the examples of movies and TV.
Now this may be too basic an answer but the simple answer is Life.
Life is what we model roleplaying on. Life is what is roleplayable. Anything in life can be roleplayed. The movies and TV you see are all modeled on life.
Now, one of the things I like here on The Forge is that most games I see here are tied quite closely with the human condition in life. Other games, like D&D, seem to want to stray from real life as much as possible (perhaps to provide escapism). Do a search for Premise here and you'll see a lot of games here are tackling big subjects like "What would you sacrifice for love?".
So, anyhow, that's my answer. I just hope I'm answering the right question. :-)
On 12/13/2002 at 2:27pm, Thierry Michel wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
quozl wrote: I just hope I'm answering the right question. :-)
Yes, although I realize my question is not very carefully worded.
To rephrase it: a common one-sentence description of role-playing is "like a movie where you make up the scenario together".
But isn't that far more restrictive than "Life" ? Many aspects of life do not lend themselves to movie adaptation (especially the action-movie format of most rpgs). Many works of fiction, even, can not be put to the screen.
To be put in a movie, things have to be spectacular ("show, don't tell"), ruling out internal experiences, abstraction & complexity and the like, there has to have some dramatic dynamics as well.
So, are the constraints of role-playing similar to those of movies/theater more or less or can one imagine different models ?
De Profundis, for instance, departs from the movie model, but is it a rpg ?
On 12/13/2002 at 2:43pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Hey, welcome.
Let's see... InSpectres is a TV series. Ron talks about his Hero Wars game being a trilogy of novels. Sorcerer & Sword is all over connected-but-not-sequential short stories. Lots of games are novelesque. I don't know of any games that are modeled after songs, unless you count Aria, which I kinda don't.
I understand that OctaNe isn't modeled after a literary form at all, but "playing guys," action figures, complete with playsets and accessories.
I think it's an interesting question.
-Vincent
On 12/13/2002 at 2:56pm, Alan wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Thierry Michel wrote: To rephrase it: a common one-sentence description of role-playing is "like a movie where you make up the scenario together".
Many game borrow elements from writing, theatre, movies, and oral storytelling - all of which borrow from each other. I think taht a bigger box includes all four, and RPGs as well - fiction.
Fiction has certain demands regardless of the format:
- It must present context - where, who, and why.
- Events must be ordered in a meaningful way.
- It must involve human concerns. (Truly alien aliens don't interest us.)
Less important, optional, elements include:
- Verisimillitude - consistent internal logic.
- Sensual description.
- "Show don't tell" presentation (which reinforces the illusion of the fantasy.)
It's not surprising that roleplaying shares similar elements with movies, theatre, storytelling, and writing, and that the games borrow terminology from these areas. But note that roleplaying is different enough from all of these to also require technical terms which are not in those fiction methods: PC, NPC, reroll, GM, etc.
On 12/13/2002 at 3:02pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
I think a point that's been made on The Forge previously is that role-playing games are their own unique medium. They have similarities to other narrative formats ranging from TV and Movies, back through books, to storytelling. They've even been compated to paintings and other media. But those are just comparisons. To say, for example, "I want my game to convey the excitement of an action movie". An RPG can do this but, given the medium, most use it's own methods.
So, think of RPGs that way. They are not literally "TV" shows or even close. They are their own format of entertainment than can be used at times to emulate some of the entertaining elements of these other media.
Note, for example, that we're really looking at the Narrativist comparisons. Sim games are probably more easily comparable to video games, or computer sims. Gamist games, are probably more comparable to other sorts of games like wargames, or chess.
But they are none of these, in fact, but their own form of entertainment. s such, they could probably be expanded to emulate whatevr other forms of entertainment that one can think of. I certainly don't think we should limit ourselves to just one or two sorts of these associations.
Mike
On 12/13/2002 at 3:11pm, quozl wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Thierry Michel wrote: De Profundis, for instance, departs from the movie model, but is it a rpg ?
An RPG is simply playing a role for fun. These roles are usually based on real-life roles but they are sometimes extrapolated into something like "a role from a movie, book, or TV show". But even then, those roles are still based on real-life roles.
To answer the question above, De Profundis is an RPG because you play a role when you write the letters and you're doing it for fun.
On 12/13/2002 at 3:23pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Let's be careful not to get into trying to define RPGs here. That's been done on many other threads, and I don't see it as the subject of the thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, Thierry. I suggest that people do quite a bit of research before trying to tackle that sticky issue. There are about as many definitions for role-playing, and role-playing games as there are people.
But the point stands that, assuming that De Profundis is a RPG, that it emulates another medium. And that's my point. There should be no limit on what other media to emulate in terms of what RPGs are.
Take, for example, the recent Ice Age games that have focused on the idea of campfire storytellers. That seems to be an exceptionally suitable medium to emulate. Orkworld does something similar. Wyrd tries to emulate Norse Skalds.
These all seem like not only viable ideas, but excellent ones. As such, I think we should think less about what other media are best to emulate, and just look at what each game does, if at all. As pointed out, a game like Octane is really very much it's own medium, emulating nothing so much as playing with action figures. Heck, there have been a couple of RPGs that were about emulating action figures.
I'm belaboring the point, but I'm of the opinion that anything goes.
Mike
On 12/13/2002 at 3:33pm, Alan wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Mike Holmes wrote: Let's be careful not to get into trying to define RPGs here. That's been done on many other threads
I second that motion.
Mike Holmes wrote:
There should be no limit on what other media to emulate in terms of what RPGs are.
Emulating the style of another medium is an important design choice - and the fact that choice can be made indicates RPGs are their own thing. Some RPGs have few elements from other narrative forms - look at D&D, it's almost it's own animal. Likewise, Hackmaster chooses to parody D&D.
On 12/13/2002 at 4:05pm, Thierry Michel wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Mike Holmes wrote: I don't see it as the subject of the thread. Correct me if I'm wrong, Thierry.
...
But the point stands that, assuming that De Profundis is a RPG, that it emulates another medium. And that's my point.
You're correct, and that was exactly my point too. But it's an almost unique example in that regard (you could also argue that the use of handouts and props is also something that doesn't come from the movie/tv model).
On 12/13/2002 at 6:29pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Hello,
I think Mike has nailed the issue down quite well from my point of view.
If we look at any two media concerning internal-causal, imagined events, I think it's easy that one can be used as an adjective to modify the other.
A comic-style film. A film-style novel. A novel-style comic. A short story-style film. A comic-style short story.
Just add role-playing game to the list of possible media and you're all set, I think.
Jon, I urge you to be more careful with your off-the-cuff comments. I think both of your claims, the one about the model being Life, and the other about role-playing = "playing a role," are extremely dubious and debatable. At the very least, recognize that such quickie answers are probably not going to help others, and if you want to enter into debate about them, please begin a new thread.
Best,
Ron
On 12/13/2002 at 8:49pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
It also bears noting that here on the Forge that such comparasons between RPGs and other media is merely for a frame of reference to fascilitate understanding.
For example, a long series RPG campaign, to use the old-fashioned term, might be compared to a television series. This refers to the self-contained nature of each session while still being a part of a larger story. The time/length factor has been found to be a factor in the TV series comparasion over something simliar like, say book chapters. Chapters do break down a longer story into smaller parts, but book chapters can be of varying length whereas TV episodes are of a fixed length. This has proved to be a better analogy.
This may not be what is being discussed, exactly, but it is a factor of this subject, I think.
On 12/14/2002 at 12:00pm, Thierry Michel wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Thanks for your patience, and let me try to rephrase the question once again (noooooo!) :
What does the write-up of an rpg session looks like ?
A fable, a novel, a short-story [...] a movie synopsis or a TV episode ?
I'd say that it looks like the latter in an overwhelming majority of cases.
Now,
* is it because a write-up is not representative of what happens in actual play ?
* is it just an inheritance of the first rpgs, but equally valid approaches are possible ?
* is it because the things that lend themselves to an rpg adaptation are those that would also make a good movie (my answer, more or less) ?
And
* does that mean that conscious imitation of movie techniques would be a valuable idea ?
[Edited because I wrote it too fast]
On 12/14/2002 at 1:18pm, quozl wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Thank you for rephrasing the question! I think I know what you're getting at now. First, I agree with you that the majority of RPGs compare roleplaying to TV and movies. I think the reason they do that though is not what you listed but this: TV and movies have actors playing roles.
Since the comparison seems to always be made when roleplaying is being explained, that makes sense. Here's a paraphrase of the typical "what is an rpg?" section:
TV and movies are exciting, right? And they are made by actors playing roles, right? And there's even a director telling the actors what's going on in each scene, right? That's what roleplaying is like!
I don't think that the examples of TV and movies are so common because that's what most RPGs emulate. I think it just helps make explaining roleplaying easier.
On 12/14/2002 at 4:05pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Hello,
I'm not sure what you mean by an "rpg question," or really, by a writeup. Are you referring to prepared, published scenarios? Or a set of notes prior to play? Or the summary of a played session? Or ...?
Thanks,
Ron
On 12/14/2002 at 5:22pm, Thierry Michel wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Oops.. I meant "session" but somehow got lost in the cut and paste.
So basically I meant the recording of what happened in the playing.
But I found the answer that was given to my typo ("rpg question") interesting too.
On 12/14/2002 at 11:48pm, Seth L. Blumberg wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
I would say that the summary of imagined events from an RPG session looks like a summary of imagined events from an RPG session.
It certainly doesn't look like a TV script, and I don't see that much resemblance to a summary of a TV episode, either.
RPG is its own medium.
On 12/15/2002 at 7:56am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
Thierry Michel wrote: What does the write-up of an rpg session looks like ?
A fable, a novel, a short-story [...] a movie synopsis or a TV episode?
From the context of this post (is it because a write-up is not representative of what happens in actual play?) I take this to mean the record of what happened in the game.
And my answer is that the record of what happened in the game is not exactly representative of what the game is, but is a distinct medium of expression of the same idea.
The records of my earliest game (in which I was the referee) read like the retroactive work of a later historian piecing together the lives of the characters who, I presumed, would ultimately be heroes worthy of such inclusion in history.
But most of my games through the early years in which I was a player had records in the forms of diaries and journals. My characters told what happened to them on a day-by-day basis, recording their feelings and their expectations and insights along the way. These were sometimes incredibly detailed (including, for example, blow-by-blow combat descriptions) but were also emotional, creating character history (one character, a sort of winged elf, wrote a very emotional piece about being involved in aerobatic competition in his youth, and how his fiancee died in an aerobatic accident in competition, which caused him to turn away from that and instead train in martial arts, thus becoming a kensai--all invented in the diary, but ultimately relevant in play).
In one game, my cavalier was "given" (by my suggestion to the referee) the task of filing regular monthly reports to his distant liege regarding what he found in the field; these became part of the history of that world, although another character was also keeping a diary including his reactions and insights into the various characters.
In my most recent game as a player, the write-up takes the form of letters by my character to his sister, telling of the adventures and essentially letting her know he's all right out here.
The point is that writing up the adventures is an independent art form; it can take a lot of different forms itself. I've recorded some adventures as the writings of non-player characters involved in the events--the log of a ship's captain who carried the PC's, the records of the military patrols surveilling an area (is that a word?), newspaper accounts of their exploits--part of the fun is thinking of ways to record the adventures that will contain sufficient detail and be entertaining and credible at the same time.
I note that you (or someone?) think RPG session write-ups are like TV series because they're episodic. Ours never have been. We play campaigns; they break when someone says, "that's a good place to stop for tonight, it's getting late". Rarely does that happen to be when we're all safely back in camp, or we've rounded out a significant segment of the story, or anything like that. It's just a spot where we can all remember where we were and pick it up next time. In that sense, TV does not fit my experience as a model. There's been nothing episodic about any game I remember playing, unless you count the idea that we were exploring one area for about a year and then moved to another for three months and another for six months--hardly what I'd call "episodes".
--M. J. Young
On 12/16/2002 at 9:35am, Thierry Michel wrote:
RE: What is roleplayable ?
M. J. Young wrote: ... And my answer is that the record of what happened in the game is not exactly representative of what the game is, but is a distinct medium of expression of the same idea...
.. The point is that writing up the adventures is an independent art form; it can take a lot of different forms itself...
Correct, point taken.