Short form-

What is the difference between pawn stance, GMless Gamism and a tactical/strategic board game?

Long form-

Last night, my friend Nigel and I were playtesting a prop-heavy combat system for Smash Brothers Melee, the RPG. As what we were mostly doing was stretching/testing the basic resolution and combat specific mechanics, there wasn't much in the way of character interaction- it was basically just a beatdown in progress.

A couple of other friends watched Nigel and I in passing, and asked about our new 'boardgame'. Explanations that it was the combat system of an RPG were met with doubtful stares- after all, the props (board and tokens) were pretty well required at this point.

And, in point of fact, I came up with no real solid answer. While I realize that Exploration is one of the primary defining characteristics of roleplaying, I suppose I still don't quite grok the distinction between Exploration of Game/System as the primary mode of play from a non-RPG. Are you roleplaying in Monopoly? In Risk? In Settlers of Cataan? Moreover, could you take those games at their basic idealized level, and /make/ them a roleplaying game, without fundamentally changing what they are?

You're going to get all sorts of answers to this but here's my take. Yes, you roleplay in Monopoly, Risk, and Settlers of Catan but the roleplaying is incidental to those games and not the focus. The board and "props" have nothing to do with it being a "boardgame" or a "roleplaying game". In fact, I would say that Diplomacy is a roleplaying boardgame.

Hi Drew,

I don't have an answer for you. I'm pretty sure that the answer I don't have is nothing like Jonathan's.

Sorry man. I'll be watching this thread with interest to see if the discussion clarifies anything for me.

Best,
Ron

Hey Drew,

The question of questions...

I would say an RPG is a game with the following elements: exploration, effective values, and story. Exploration in the sense that there is background/setting material to be discovered through play. Effective values in the sense that your piece(s) has one or more effectiveness numbers (even if those numbers are binary)--as do the other pieces in the game--and those numbers can change through play. Story in the sense that things happen, and these things may be described in a narrative.

Thus, things like board games are right out. Most wargames are out because there is nothing to explore. Most interactive fiction is out because there are no effective values. Most freeform play is out. Dramatic improvisation is out.

On the other hand, LARPS are in. CRPGs are in, including such games as Final Fantasy Tactics and Jagged Alliance. Most MUDs are in. Tabletop RPGs, of course, are included.

However, one has to ask the question: what advantage is there in defining what an RPG is? People will decide for themselves whether something is or is not an RPG, based on their preconceptions and prejudices, regardless of what any of us might say. I'll know it when I see it, as the saying goes.

Later,
Grant

Grant,

I think the freeformers would disagree. I mean they call it roleplaying. Aren't the character's efectivenesses enumerated in the player's descriptions?

What if I had a system where effectiveness was listed in terms of words. Bob has Amazing Strength, for example.

The narrative description falls apart, too. I can narratively describe a game of Advanced Squad Leader.

I do agree with you that it's a fine line. Nobody has really ever come up with a defintion that even the majority of parties will agree to. So I['m not sure that the definition is really important. In point of fact, I'm not really sure at all that Universalis is a role-playing game.

The only problem becomes practicalities. Like what's suitable for discussion here at The Forge. But that's been pretty well established by tradition. I'm unaware of anyone who has felt disenfranchised because they were discluded for having a "borderline" game.

Mike

Well, the advantage to me is that I like precise language. :)

So, is Magic: The Gathering an RPG? After all, it's had an increasing amount of setting to discover through play, effective values that will change during play, and can be related as a narrative.

At the same time, it really doesn't seem like one, to moi.

All board games are right out? How does Monopoly not have a setting to explore (the world/mindset of a property baron), effective values (money, property), and narratability?

Wait- what precisely do you mean by exploration of setting? I've got the feeling we mean different things there...

EDIT

See, I personally consider the question of 'What is an RPG?' to be in the same vein as asking a purely Socractic question, like 'What is virtue?' or 'What is courage?' Which is to say, an important question to ask over and over, with subtle variation and more specific points, because the answers can open different paths than you haven't previously considered. It's not practically useful in even the way that GNS can be- but it is a good thing to keep retreading.

From Ron's GNS essay:

When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she relies on imagining and utilizing the following: Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color.


Character: a fictional person or entity.
System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.
Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including history as well as location).
Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.
Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide atmosphere.


At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is "about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be imagined by the real people. In this sense, saying "system" means "imagining events to be occurring."

Drew Stevens wrote: Wait- what precisely do you mean by exploration of setting? I've got the feeling we mean different things there...

Hey Mike, Drew,

Mike, I am going to take the Ron Edwards approach to arguing and ask that you re-read what I said. The freeform play you describe has effectiveness values. Simple ones, but enough to work from. On the other hand, a lot of freeform starts as barely more than improv + genre conventions. I would say it evolves into an RPG but starts as shared storytelling.

Your ASL example is a non-sequiter. Any wargame worth playing has story. That is most of the point of play. What most wargames lack is exploration. Campaign-style wargaming could potentially fall into my definition, and I think that kind of game would be a lot of fun.

Drew, I suppose you could play Magic as an RPG, if you prioritized a) exploring the actual text on the cards and b) relating the gameplay as an evolving story. I do not think most people play Magic as an RPG, though.

Monopoly is way, way out there. It would be one of the most threadbare RPGs ever. Hardly anything to explore, and the story would be enough to make a stock-trader yawn. Nevermind that the effectiveness values are terribly dull. Again, if you honestly wanted to, you could drift Monopoly into an RPG, but I would have no interest in doing so.

Later,
Grant

At the risk of stating the obvious, I'll point out that (by definition) a role-playing game is a game in which one plays a role.

I think that a contributing (not necessarily determining) factor to whether a game should be called an RPG is how central that playing-of-a-role is to the game. In Monopoly, players in some sense take on roles of real estate barons. The sense in which they do so is not (typically) a very deep one, though. It is a pretense that allows you to get to the rest of the game. Some board games have each player take on the role of a character. These might be better-defined roles, but the focus of the game is still hardly the playing of the role.

Stuart

I agree fully with Ethan. When the players are Exploring Setting (say), they're envisioning the setting in their imaginations. Chess and Monopoly and Squad Leader, you don't imagine the setting, it's right there in front of you, concrete and fully realized. You can't Explore it. Like you can't Explore the little doggie in Monopoly; its actions and behavior are fully layed out by the game mechanics, with no room for imagination.

No imagination, no Exploration, no roleplaying.

The line between rpgs and other kinds of games seems clear to me. A game might cross over it during play, but at any given moment, you'll be roleplaying or you won't be.

(Not to say that you can't roleplay while you're playing Monopoly, or Magic the Gathering, or any game. But it's not a roleplaying game if you can play it without using your imagination.)

-Vincent

ThreeGee wrote: Mike, I am going to take the Ron Edwards approach to arguing and ask that you re-read what I said. The freeform play you describe has effectiveness values. Simple ones, but enough to work from. On the other hand, a lot of freeform starts as barely more than improv + genre conventions. I would say it evolves into an RPG but starts as shared storytelling.

Your ASL example is a non-sequiter. Any wargame worth playing has story. That is most of the point of play. What most wargames lack is exploration. Campaign-style wargaming could potentially fall into my definition, and I think that kind of game would be a lot of fun.

Drew, I suppose you could play Magic as an RPG, if you prioritized a) exploring the actual text on the cards and b) relating the gameplay as an evolving story. I do not think most people play Magic as an RPG, though.

Separating this post from the above for clarity.

lumpley wrote: (Not to say that you can't roleplay while you're playing Monopoly, or Magic the Gathering, or any game. But it's not a roleplaying game if you can play it without using your imagination.

Drew Stevens wrote: What is the difference between pawn stance, GMless Gamism and a tactical/strategic board game?

cruciel wrote: If you ever transition out of Pawn stance (say, making the leap to Author stance) then it becomes a roleplaying game.

I have a somewhat different definition of role-playing. A game is a role-playing game, if in principle someone is watching the game over your shoulder and suggests a move, to which you reply "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens or could happen, then you are playing a role-playing game.

This requires characters and actions those characters do -- thus there is a fictional narrative. However, exploration of background/setting is not required. For example, I could fairly easily imagine a Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, or Paranoia scenario set in a fixed location with known characters -- the interest comes from the things which the characters do, not from revealed secrets of their background or from the setting.

Similarly, I don't think changing effectiveness numbers are needed. There are games for which they are not needed. For example, I have played several mystery scenarios which don't have any effectiveness numbers or need for such.

John Kim wrote: I have a somewhat different definition of role-playing. A game is a role-playing game, if in principle someone is watching the game over your shoulder and suggests a move, to which you reply "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens or could happen, then you are playing a role-playing game.

How about this:
"A game is a role-playing game if an action that's permissible by its rules can be disallowed by the (explicit or implicit) Social Contract."?
That covers games where you don't strictly have characters, as well as I-games.

John Kim wrote: I have a somewhat different definition of role-playing. A game is a role-playing game, if in principle someone is watching the game over your shoulder and suggests a move, to which you reply "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens or could happen, then you are playing a role-playing game.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

John Kim wrote: I have a somewhat different definition of role-playing. A game is a role-playing game, if in principle someone is watching the game over your shoulder and suggests a move, to which you reply "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens or could happen, then you are playing a role-playing game.

So if someone is watching you play chess and suggest you move your knight forward four spaces and you reply the piece cannot do that, then Chess is a roleplaying game?

Dear Mr. Stevens:

RPGs always differ from board games in two ways: manifold and playfulness.

All RPGs develop a manifold of situations imagined by the participants, and transformed by GM judgements outside of all axiomatic necessity.

Playfulness is when situations, by triggering memories of intriguing fantasy in the participants, increases the number of potential transformation-options available.

Board games have no manifold, transforming according to axioms, requiring judgements only for clarity.

Nor do they have playfulness in this sense, because the number of transformation-options is fixed from the get-go.



Cpl Ferro

Shreyas Sampat wrote: How about this:
"A game is a role-playing game if an action that's permissible by its rules can be disallowed by the (explicit or implicit) Social Contract."?
That covers games where you don't strictly have characters, as well as I-games.

John Kim wrote: Put another way: If the personality of the character isn't a limit that genuinely affects in-game decisions, then it isn't role-playing.

I find John Kim's definition appealing, but then that's no surprise - we seem to be thinking a bunch of similar thoughts at this point.

I do want to suggest that rigorous boundaries are impossible to achieve by definition in this sort of case, because part of what makes a roleplaying game is the intent of the participants. That is, a particular game may work as a roleplaying game for some people and as something else for others. Roleplaying is partly about the objective elements of the game, but also partly about how the folks doing it feel about it. So the boundaries will necessarily be fuzzy, and rather than talking about precisely bounded units, we're talking about overlapping sets.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

John Kim wrote: Put another way: If the personality of the character isn't a limit that genuinely affects in-game decisions, then it isn't role-playing.

OK. But this disallows Pawn Stance and is dangerously close to synecdoche.

So that I find the term "roleplaying game" to be a misnomer and that an activity labeled as such may not included elements that can be strictly called either roleplaying or game means that we shall have to agree to disagree. Superb!

I’d like to add to the discussion by examining how some differing assumptions about language seem to be causing "static" in this thread. Specifically, I think that before we can define something, we need to understand what we are doing when we create a definition. I think some of the posts are coming at this process from very different directions, and this is causing problems and/or confusions. Once we know what we mean to do by definition, we can actually work at defining "roleplaying game" a little bit more efficiently. Bear with me--I think this is relevant to the initial question. In fact, IMO, it's fundamental.

So I’d like to propose that definition is more constructively not approached as a process of creating a meaning for a word and making the usage fit into it. Instead, definition is better conceived as a process of description based on usage. It consists of looking at how a word is actually used in order to come up with a description that defines the word. Thus, we are actually helping define a word when we say, “Game X is a roleplaying game, game Y is not, etc.” We’re also helping when we say, “Here’s a possible definition. This definition works/doesn’t work when game X (Y, Z, etc.) is considered.”

In contrast, we’re not really effectively defining a word when we say, “game X is/isn’t or could be/couldn’t be considered an RPG, based on my definition.” This takes the pre-set definition as the starting point, rather than the evidence of usage. The most useful stuff achieved in this thread so far has remembered to treat the data as a starting point. Monopoly and chess are useful precisely because we generally agree that they aren’t roleplaying games. Meanwhile, something like D&D must be included in whatever definition we come up with because it is iconic of roleplaying games. The usage is used to prove (read: test) the definitions. Given this, I think it would be constructive to first get together a data set for usage, even if it’s just the usage of the folks contributing to the thread. We’d be well served by establishing something like:

What games do we agree can be safely called RPGs?
What games do we agree can be safely excluded from the definition?
What games are borderline, in that our opinions differ noticeably?

In a way, this thread has, until now, been trying to do too many different things. 1) It has been providing a place for us to propose our definitions of “roleplaying.” 2) It has been providing a place for us to test our definitions by comparing them to our personal “lists” of games that are/aren’t RPGs. 3) It has been giving us a place to establish a “communal list” of games that are/aren’t RPGs. I think the third point is essential to the second, but right now, it’s not explicit. Instead, it’s mostly embedded in a lot of rhetoric about the first two.

Now, looking just at some of the examples used so far, I can ask myself: What is a roleplaying game, and what isn’t? I’ll start with a troublemaker: Universalis. My usage would include Universalis as a roleplaying game (this may be mainly because I first found it through a roleplaying-oriented site). But one of the designers, Mike, has already hinted that he might not consider it to be one. (And yet, he might, as far as I can tell. Mike?) Now what about everyone else? I don’t know because we don’t have a common agreement on that, yet. In fact, there might be more people here who would exclude it from the category of “RPG” than include it. There might be even more people outside the Forge who wouldn’t count it as an RPG. This would make my own conception of it as an RPG fairly peripheral. Still, that I call it an RPG is one piece of information. (Of course, this is an example. I don’t want to turn this thread into an overly detailed, and thus somewhat tangential, discussion of whether Universalis is an RPG or not.)

Ok, what about Drew’s initial examples? Well, as far as usage goes, I think it’s pretty safe to say that no one is really claiming that Monopoly, Risk, or Settlers of Catan are roleplaying games. What about Smash Brothers Melee, the RPG? Well, I don’t think it’s complete yet, which makes the definition difficult. Instead, I’ll have to ask you, Drew, a couple things. Were you playing an RPG when you tested the combat system? Would you have called that a “roleplaying session,” in that form? If not, I wouldn’t say that you were playing an RPG yet. Will it become an RPG? That seems to be the intent. (As for the props, I think John has accurately pointed out that their use in the game is not definitive. Props have been included in roleplaying games since the beginning, and their presence or absence does not seem particularly indicative of whether a game is a roleplaying game or not. I can provide easy examples of RPGs that explicitly encourage their use, like D&D or Call of Cthulhu, and also of RPGs that discourage them, like Feng Shui.)

So to reiterate my main point: Meanings are created through usage. We’d be most effective if we focused on collecting a data set first. Then we’d be better prepared to propose definitions and test them. In the absence of this, I think it's at least worthwhile to always keep in mind that the usage is the starting point, not the other way around.

Rich

I think I may be able to synthesize Vincent "Lumpley"'s and John Kim's notions into one; bear with me, though, because I'm feeling my way through this.

A role playing game requires at some point that the player provide some degree of characterization for whatever in-game element or elements represents or represent his ability to act within the confines of the sphere of exploration that is the game.

Thus, D&D is a role playing game because players must at some point bring their interpretations of who their characters are into expression through play.

Universalis is, I think, also a role playing game, because even when played without characters it is still necessary to charaterize the elements that are interacting, such that they have different identities which interact.

Alyria is a role playing game because the players cooperatively create the core character identities of the characters in the stories, and expand these through in-play interactions.

Baron Munchausen is a role playing game because the players express distinct created personalities as they weave their stories.

Multiverser is a role playing game, because the game is played through an in-game expression of the player's character, which may change in response to in-game circumstance independently of that of the player, and so requires characterization.

Monopoly is not a role playing game, nor Magic, nor Chess, because even though the player might choose to invest themselves or their in-game representatives with personality, this is not a necessary nor a functional part of play.

It does not matter at what point in play this characterization becomes necessary; what matters is that it does or does not become necessary in any play of the game that is not abortive at an early stage.

Does that work for everyone? Have I included a game that should be excluded, or excluded a game that should be included?

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: Monopoly is not a role playing game, nor Magic, nor Chess, because even though the player might choose to invest themselves or their in-game representatives with personality, this is not a necessary nor a functional part of play.

Does that work for everyone? Have I included a game that should be excluded, or excluded a game that should be included?

At the risk of initially sounding a bit "me too" here, I'd like to second Rich Forest's formulation of definition as a process.

Here's a few modes worth thinking about, just in the abstract, if we want to undertake definitions as a problematic:

1. Formal Taxonomy
A series of binary questions differentiates any given element from another. Thus, "Does it have A or not?" "If it has A, does it have B or not?" "If it has B, does it have C or not?" And so forth.

The issue becomes a singular defining characteristic or essence. Given that a particular element (game) fits all characteristics up to X point, it is/is not an RPG if it has Y.

2. Phenomenological List
A variant of the taxonomic, this postulates a list of required elements without regard for logical or temporal order. Thus "In order to be an RPG, it must have the following 7 elements; if any one is missing it isn't an RPG."

Again, you tend to reduce to a singular essence, because most of the borderline cases will have the same 6 elements and it'll be the same 7th element that's in question.

3. Polythetic Classification
Not popular outside statistical biology, but probably the best system around. You have a list of elements, and you say that in order to be a member of the class, if must have a certain number of those elements. So if you have 20 elements, and you say that it must have at least 8 of them, then it's possible to have two games with no overlapping elements that are nevertheless both members of the same taxon. The great thing about this is that it can't be reduced to an essence or singular element because the elements aren't prioritized. The down side is that the list tends to be long, and you have to debate how many elements are required.

But here's a really important point, already made in Rich's post, but in different language:

A definition must serve a theoretical end

To put it differently, any definition must serve the function of classifying at least two things together under a determined rubric. Thus it serves the procedure of comparison, in which X and Y (the games) are compared with respect to Z (the definition, or a sub-issue). So we could compare two games with respect to Narrativist uses of Director Stance, or whatever. In order to justify this comparison, we'd need to establish that both fit the formal classifications of Narrativism and Director Stance.

But the thing is, the definition is valueless without such application, which means that the definition is constructed for the purpose of such application. There isn't a right answer: "RPG" is not a thing, but a classification. If that classification serves an analytical end, great; if not, it's worthless.

I personally think this discussion demonstrates that the analysis of the category is worth doing. But let's not lose sight of the fact that there cannot be a right answer, because that implies a metaphysics of truth that nobody can or should try to formulate.

Anyway, enough pure theory. And thanks, Rich!

Well, after following this thread, I would have to say that an rpg is a game that includes no component or combination of components that serve as a complete substitute for the shared imaginary space of the players within the confines of the rules.

The board, money, etc. in Monopoly would be examples of such components. Sure, I can declare that my car token runs over the dog but such action is outside the confines of the system. There is, in essence, not meant to be any shared imaginary space. Hero Quest would be a board game. DnD with miniatures and a battlemap is still an rpg because as soon as I declare that I'm trying to sweet talk the dwarven barmaid I have left the confines of the battlemap but am still well within the sytem and my actions can have an in game effect.

Edited to add that this seems to be in line with what Ethan is proposing.

-Chris

C. Edwards wrote: Well, after following this thread, I would have to say that an rpg is a game that includes no component or combination of components that serve as a complete substitute for the shared imaginary space of the players within the confines of the rules.

The board, money, etc. in Monopoly would be examples of such components. Sure, I can declare that my car token runs over the dog but such action is outside the confines of the system. There is, in essence, not meant to be any shared imaginary space. Hero Quest would be a board game. DnD with miniatures and a battlemap is still an rpg because as soon as I declare that I'm trying to sweet talk the dwarven barmaid I have left the confines of the battlemap but am still well within the sytem and my actions can have an in game effect.

Good points John, I do have some comments:

1) This seems to exclude a number of live-action games (LARPs) and online games (MUDs) from being roleplaying. Because they cannot count on having a GM on hand, these games have absolute rules for what can and cannot be done by characters. Of course, in-character dialogue like the sweet-talking above still has an affect, by influencing the decisions of the barmaid's player. However, influence talking to another player is possible in any game.

2) This definition can include wargames or miniatures play. Many hard-core simulation players are willing to overlook the rules in order to get the "realistic" result. There are even systemless wargames, where the results of each players move are determined by a set of judges.

Rich Forest wrote: Well, as far as usage goes, I think it’s pretty safe to say that no one is really claiming that Monopoly, Risk, or Settlers of Catan are roleplaying games.

Rich

OK, I was going to offer up some problematic cases as a list.

1) A solo "Tunnels & Trolls" adventure: This is a solo gamebook but unlike choose-your-own-adventure has a full character sheet and uses the full RPG rules. (As a related case, you could consider an RPG combat system used for a wargame scenario.)

2) The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen: This is a storytelling game where each player makes up an outrageous 18th century noble and then they play a storytelling game in-character. Actions are limited to storytelling and a special form of duelling.

3) Free Kriegspiel: A term for systemless wargames that I have mentioned. There is a page on them here. This is a wargame with a judge or judges who decide the result of moves and combats systemlessly, based on their knowledge of real-world military. Players may thus attempt anything they can think of, including unorthodox tactics, special actions, etc.

4) A freeform mystery game like my own Business of Murder. Here the players all have full character information and are allowed to say whatever they like. The limit is that only dialogue is allowed (i.e. no touching, no actions beyond ones you would do in person).

Personally, I would say that: (1) does not really have any role-playing. The solo gamebooks don't consider character as a limit in any actions: any enumerated choice is considered valid. (2) is borderline, but is roleplaying in that the generated character changes what stories are told. (3) is not generally roleplaying because the commander is not considered as a character -- but the procedure could be used for an RPG. (4) is roleplaying.

There are more cases: I may add to the list in a later post, or of course others may too.

Hey John,

In the spirit of agreeing to disagree,
I would say solo Tunnels & Trolls is an RPG. It fits the form of an RPG, it is pitched as an RPG, it is an RPG.

I would say Munchausen is an RPG as long as the emphasis is on playing a lair and not on telling stories. Without that token, the game is just sitting around the campfire telling tall tales.

I would say free kriegspiel is an RPG. You have tokens of your own with understood properties, you explore the limits of what the judges allow in terms of world functionality, and you form a story as a series of events.

I would say murder mysteries are RPG-like. They are games with roleplaying, but your token (yourself) has no particular properties. I confess I am being arbitrary, but to me, that which belongs to theater does not belong to gamers, and vice versa. Being in essence improv, murder mysteries to me are not RPGs.

Honestly, the only functional definition can be, "Something is an RPG if someone says that it is." Anything else is arguing over semantics and/or inviting synecdoche. The Way that can be Named is not the Tao, and all that.

We also need to decide if RPG is an exclusive property. If something is a wargame, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is a computer game, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is an RPG, is it automatically neither a wargame nor a computer game?

Later,
Grant

Here is my revised definition:

Any game that can be played in its entirety without necessitating the use of imaginary space, shared or otherwise, is not by design a role-playing game. Furthermore, any game that allows activity in an imaginary space to have in-game effect without overriding the rules as written can be utilized as a role-playing game even if it is not, by design, an rpg.

That allows for Jonathan’s Risk games, and other board games (Clue, Monopoly, etc.) that can, through player fiat, be utilized as rpgs without altering the written rules.

The definition also assumes that “Role-playing Game” is a poor title for the games we commonly place in that category. The aspect of “imaginary space” in general is more important than whether the participant is portraying a particular character in that space. That would put games such as Universalis and Once Upon A Time firmly within the spectrum of what my definition refers to as role-playing games.

-Chris

ThreeGee wrote: I would say murder mysteries are RPG-like. They are games with roleplaying, but your token (yourself) has no particular properties. I confess I am being arbitrary, but to me, that which belongs to theater does not belong to gamers, and vice versa. Being in essence improv, murder mysteries to me are not RPGs.

ThreeGee wrote: We also need to decide if RPG is an exclusive property. If something is a wargame, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is a computer game, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is an RPG, is it automatically neither a wargame nor a computer game?

Hey John,

I’m going to attempt to field your examples:

1) Solo “Tunnels & Trolls”: Well, another cogitative speed bump. I’ve come to several different conclusions depending on my angle of approach. I’m tempted to say that the very act of reading narrative text invokes an imaginary space. For now I would rank this as rpg, maybe when my headache goes away I’ll reconsider. ;)

2) Baron Munchausen: Lots of shared imaginary space with a handful of elements that make it an actual game instead of just group storytelling. Definitely an rpg by design.

3) Free Kriegspiel: After reading up on this I would say that it definitely isn’t systemless, just system lite. The judges are basically assigning target numbers based upon their knowledge and experience, just like a GM in many circumstances. The game even uses a d10.

As for categorization, I would lean towards not an rpg by design, but like Risk, actions in an imaginary space might be able to alter in-game events without mangling the "rules".

4)freeform mystery: I’m out of time so I may tackle this one later. Offhand though I would also say rpg by design.

-Chris

Hey John, Chris,

John, I misunderstood you. What you describe sounds like a pretty straight-forward larp. It fits both the form and fuction of an RPG.

The exclusive/non-exclusive thing was more directed at others, but I am glad we agree.

Chris, I really have no idea what you mean by required shared imaginitive space, as you describe it. Can you phrase it another way? Does this mean that something like an improv game such as those on "Whose Line is it, Anyway?" would be an RPG? Would the collaborative process used to write a script or design a larp game session be an RPG?

Later,
Grant

<recovering from the debacle of trying to find meaning by 14 simultaneous conversations in another thread>

Okay, Why not start simple, and build up from there?

Question: What is a role-playing game; i.e., what do all things classified as a rpg have in common, be they pro-gamist, pro-simulationist, pro-narrativist, or whatever?

Step 1. A role-playing game is a game in which you play one or more roles.

I know, that's obvious, but it leads us to the next questions,

What do we mean by role, in this context?
What do we mean by play, in this context?
What do we mean by game, in this context?

And here, I think, is the heart of the answer. How you define (in context) each of these three, answers the question.

So let's do that.

For now, I am not going to worry about having webster-level accuracy, or making sure someone can't *deliberately* misunderstand me. So if you find the definitions I suggest too loose or lacking "dictionary language", realize that I am not trying to propose an exact word for word, letter for letter definition, rather, I am trying to give enough information that, with a modicum of effort, the target definition becomes mostly obvious to all save those intentionally misunderstanding.

These are not intended to have the weight of legality behind them or to be used in life or death situations. This is merely a public conversation, in which my goal is to bring up a shared reference between us, even *if* said reference isnt explicitly and rigorously described.

That out of the way, lets proceed.

Role: I think we have a shared understanding of what this is, so I will lay down a few descriptors to verify that. A role is simply a character or persona that is not completely identical to ourselves, that we imagine or consider.

Play: In this context, playing a role is to simply put onself mentally in the role's imaginary situation, and many times to make decisions for that role in the context of that imaginary situation.

Game: an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement, with certain rules. In this context, a game that has certain rules to help facillitate playing one or more "roles," for the purpose of amusement or diversion.

And that's that, I think.

So an rpg is simply a game (with certain rules), in which we "play" one or more "roles".

Is Magic the Gathering an RPG?

No. As it stands, Magic the Gathering does not specifically have rules governing the playing of a role. In Magic the Gathering, you do play a wizard, but that wizard is not treated as a "role", with a persona that is played; but instead as a "unit" whose abillities are played.

Could Magic the Gathering be augmented into an RPG? Yes, fairly easily. I can think of three things, that if altered, would qualify MtG for being an RPG.

1) A character generation system which would allow for character traits, such that the "wizards" have quantifiable differences apart from the deck construction and contents. In other words, a way to "personalize" your "wizard."

2) A system for the "wizard" to improve it's stats over time, and the continuity of a "wizard's" role such that some changes and improvements carry over from round to round. In other words, the ups and downs of the "wizard" are continuous through multiple sessions, creating a continuity of character.

3) A back story, to give flavor and purpose to the card game, to make the card game symbolize something meaningful in a context larger than that of a single session. In other words, an imaginative creation that allows the players to imagine their "roles" in situations that are not all completely identical.

All three of the above elements are for the purpose of creating the "wizard" as a *role*. But as it stands now, MtG's "wizard" is not a role.

I think that, when cogitated about, this becomes relatively straightforward. More so that I would have guessed, actually.

OK, this is the scary part... so, what do you guys think? Is this workable? Doesn't this pretty much do the trick?

As far as I can see, any rpg, whether Gamist, Simmist, or Narrativist, would *have* to meet with the above.

However, that's not to say that you couldn't have a *non*-rpg that was Gamist, Simmist, or Narativist.

-Sindyr

Sindyr, I we all agree on "play" and "game". It's the "role" we disagree about and if we should even try to define the parts of roleplaying game to discern the meaning of the whole phrase.

Again, it is simplistic, but perhaps:

1) Let's use the simple definition of role above? (See NOTE in above section re: explicitness and rigorousness)

2) I think it seems to make perfect sense to try to define the elements of the phrase "roleplaying game" to discern the meaning of the whole phrase. If we were trying to understand the phrase "waiting for the other shoe to drop", then it would make sense not to depend too heavily on the meanings of the individual phrase elements to understand the whole phrase, but I think the phrase "roleplaying game" is not a metaphor, it is what it is.

-Sindyr

Dear Mr. Kim:

Regarding your examples:

:::::1) A solo "Tunnels & Trolls" adventure: This is a solo gamebook but unlike choose-your-own-adventure has a full character sheet and uses the full RPG rules. (As a related case, you could consider an RPG combat system used for a wargame scenario.)

This is not an RPG, because it is governed by a machine, not a man. It is a choose-your-own-adventure book with RPG tropes.

:::::2) The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen: This is a storytelling game where each player makes up an outrageous 18th century noble and then they play a storytelling game in-character. Actions are limited to storytelling and a special form of duelling.

This is an RPG, if perhaps a GM-less one. Situations are transformed by one or more participants making principled decisions, using the rules as an aid.

:::::3) Free Kriegspiel: A term for systemless wargames that I have mentioned. There is a page on them here. This is a wargame with a judge or judges who decide the result of moves and combats systemlessly, based on their knowledge of real-world military. Players may thus attempt anything they can think of, including unorthodox tactics, special actions, etc.

This is a roleplaying game where the characters are armies rather than individual men. As such it's no different in principle than using Titans or forces of nature as characters.

:::::4) A freeform mystery game like my own Business of Murder. Here the players all have full character information and are allowed to say whatever they like. The limit is that only dialogue is allowed (i.e. no touching, no actions beyond ones you would do in person).

This is a roleplaying game.



Cpl Ferro

Hey Grant,

Shared Imaginary Space is where Exploration (as defined in the GNS essay) takes place. In a game that is not an “rpg by design” (by my definition) Exploration is not accounted for as a means to affect game play and therefore the game can be played in its entirety without ever entering into an Imaginary Space (Monopoly, for example). When Exploration can be brought to bear in a game effecting manner that doesn’t alter the existing rules you have instance of a non-rpg being utilized as an rpg.

"The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own." -from "GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory" by Ron Edwards

Sindyr wrote: Again, it is simplistic, but perhaps:

1) Let's use the simple definition of role above? (See NOTE in above section re: explicitness and rigorousness)

-Sindyr

What is gaming?

Yer pretty close with the "imaginary space" idea. That's a definite. However, little else is. Most of the rest of the qualities are continuums. Each person has their own comfort level in terms of what they will or won't accept as gaming.

I think one concept that is rather central, yet gets so little attention is sharing. Taken to the ultimate extreme, I think it quite clear that you can't role-playing game alone. What about Tunnels & Trolls you say? Somebody had to write those solo adventures! Y'see, I'm pretty sure it isn't gaming until you're doin' it with someone. And that means sharing. (Is it really 'with someone' if you don't give them any?)

If sharing weren't so important, the Lumpley principle (mechanics facilitate reaching consensus of in-game results) would be largely pointless. If sharing weren't so important would 'narrative control rights' be of any issue?

So what does that leave? Players...interacting...about and/or within a shared "imaginary space." That pretty much covers it. All other issues (continuums) regard how 'traditional' the game is (and are subject to differing comfort levels). For example:

Console Video Games

Whether you consider these role-playing games or not depends on your minimum comfort level with the sharing idea; does interacting with the full-on static creation of another person count? (Can it be a role-playing game if it's completely railroaded?)


Universalis

How attached you are to the idea that player-characters are the exclusive connection to the role-playing gaming, shared "imaginary space" determines whether this is a role-playing game to you.


Freeform

Explicit systemization is overrated. People must play systematically in order to have a relevant (by way of consistency), shared "imaginary space." The continuum here is how implicit the systemization is; being too implicit often fails in explanation to satisfy a third party's comfort level regarding sharing.

The whole "Role...Playing...Game" taxonomy was amusing the first twenty or thirty times I heard it. And you can still fit what I've given into it, if you're willing to mangle the language (Role = players' doings + Playing = interacting + Game = shared "imaginary space"). It is highly problematic to use as a form of communication because it carries much unnecessary garbage. Universalis, Ars Magica, and Munchausen's begin to demonstrate how flexible 'playing a role' really is. Pretty much any way you look at breaking it up, when you separate "playing" it becomes redundant because how can you have a "game" that you aren't "playing?" And well, if you don't see what kind of chess-wargaming-soccer baggage comes with the word "game," I can't help you.

Before I let you go, I need to point out that you can use social contract to drift any ruleset. However, if you accept that into discussion, then there are no examples that can be used. If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples. Can we drop what anything can be drifted to? It's just a straw man argument underscoring that we must go by a game's text to determine what it's for. Magic: the Gathering therefore need not be considered. (I don't remember the interaction in that game being over shared "imaginary space;" in some plays you never interact with your opponent's personal "imaginary space," whereas in Munchausen's you can't avoid that. But again that is just another 'comfort zone' about how far down the continuum of shared "imaginary space" you accept; opinions differ.)

Fang Langford

p. s. Has anyone here actually played Munchausen (even by proxy)? I might go so far as to describe it as a game where the players play with Director Stance with total abandon. There are no resolution mechanics at all; the rules exist only to support the competition. It often naïvely devolves to primitive Narrativism, all in service of a Gamist agenda (the stakes, the challenge, whatever you want to call it; it's all about winning). Where's the sharing? When one player speaks, none of the other even 'have characters;' they get to attempt to 'mess you up.' How well you turn the 'interference' into entertaining narration determines if you win.

Le Joueur wrote: If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples. Can we drop what anything can be drifted to? It's just a straw man argument underscoring that we must go by a game's text to determine what it's for.

Fang Langford

Damn, Fang, that's the first post in this thread that works for me.

Jonathan, I'm not sure if your agenda here is to receive acknowledgment for your point (i.e. confirmation that we understand it) or to argue that point in a more general sense. It's easy for the latter to transform into the former in a discussion, so I'm kind of concerned about that here.

Best,
Ron

qouzl wrote:

Sindyr wrote:

Again, it is simplistic, but perhaps:
1) Let's use the simple definition of role above? (See NOTE in above section re: explicitness and rigorousness)
-Sindyr

We must agree to disagree since I agree with this:

A role is simply a character or persona that is not completely identical to ourselves, that we imagine or consider.

but I do not agree with how you said that playing the wizard in Magic is not a role. It is an imagined persona that is not identical to ourselves, just like when I play Monopoly, I take on an imagined persona not identical to myself, the greedy property baron (who has no setting, no name, no characteristics other than "greedy", but is still a persona different than myself).

Let me add that to count as a "role" in the context of the phrase "role playing game", the "role" must be somewhat unique, and not functionally an exact copy of another player's "unit."

And furthermore, board games like monopoly are not rpg's because in both intent and practice, most players of these games generally do not take on a "role" in the way contextually defined in the above messages I have posted.

I think one of the most common features of an RPG is a ruleset that facillitates the taking on of a "role" imaginatively.

-Sindyr

Fang, I think that you and I are trying to saying the same thing, more or less. You come at it from the standpoint of "imaginary space", whereas I come from the standpoint of "role".

However, I think that one entails the other. Although the word "role" has many meanings, and many shades within, when taken with the context of the phrase "role playing game", I think your concept of "imaginary space" is contained within it's (role's) meaning.

-Sindyr

Hey Fang, et al,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. We can consider Monopoly from the perspective of roleplaying, and we can consider Magic from the perspective of roleplaying, but CRPGs are RPGs, and LARPs are RPGs, by definition. Any definition that does not include CRPGs and LARPs as RPGs is pretentious hand-waving, being dead on arrival. I am willing to accept any definition that anyone cares to propose, as long as it categorizes RPGs as RPGs.

On the other hand, your proposal works for me in terms of tabletop-roleplaying.

Ron, I am dying to know your proposal. As an actual biologist, you must understand taxonomy as well as anyone here.

Later,
Grant

Well, if CRPG's and LARP's use the element "role" in the same context as it is used in RPG, then I agree.

Dear Mr. Le Joueur/Langford:

Playing a roleplaying game alone is entirely possible. The only caveat is that only a GM can do it; a player cannot roleplay alone, without a GM, because a GM is defined as he who transforms the imagined situations.

This is something I, and, I'll wager, other GMs, do fairly often; namely, roleplay solo within our gaming world, for the purposes of developing background material.

That this is also describes story writing, should clarify how writing a story, itself is a form of roleplaying, producing a transcript for publication and passive reception.

Authority issues only matter when there are non-GMs present.



Cpl Ferro

Ron Edwards wrote: Jonathan, I'm not sure if your agenda here is to receive acknowledgment for your point (i.e. confirmation that we understand it) or to argue that point in a more general sense. It's easy for the latter to transform into the former in a discussion, so I'm kind of concerned about that here.

Best,
Ron

Hi Jonathan,

That's what I was thinking. So, let's see if I'm getting your point correctly in my mind.

* Ron tries to say Jon's point:
The association of real person to fictional character is the "central node" of the activity called role-playing. In Ron-speak, we're talking about Exploration of Character, particularly in terms of ownership per person.

Thus playing Universalis would not be role-playing except insofar as the "ownership" issue gets established during play (which it does, according to the rules, but not right away).

Question for Jonathan: is GMing role-playing? Especially in the absence of the sort of favorite-villain or special-buddy GM-PC phenomenon?

* End of attempt

Is that close enough for government work?

Best,
Ron

Hey Fang,

I’m of the opinion that the imaginary space need only be shared in the sense that all the participants need be included. So, I see solo games as being able to fit fully within the role-playing game spectrum.

Fang wrote:

Before I let you go, I need to point out that you can use social contract to drift any ruleset. However, if you accept that into discussion, then there are no examples that can be used. If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples.

If it helps anything Jonathan, I definitely understand what you're saying conceptually...I'm just not certain I understand its relation to the definition of a role playing game.

When I play Monopoly I'm not playing "Ralph Mazza", I'm playing "Ralph Mazza the land speculator / real estate developer" (to the extent that Monopoly resembles those activities in the abstract.)

So, ok, I'm playing a "role" of sorts. Got it...even agree with it up to this point.

But to extend that into "Monopoly is therefor a Role Playing Game" (even if just a little bit) is tantamount to saying.

A Role Playing Game is a game about playing a role...I play a role in Monopoly, therefor Monopoly is a Role Playing Game. I think as Fang points out defining what an RPG is by the words in the name is something lacks long past the point of applicability.

I mean, college dating is a "game" of sorts...and one in which many definitely play a "role" (the role being that of sensitive caring person who actually cares what you think and isn't just trying to get laid)...is it then a roleplaying game?

So from where I'm sitting I definitely agree with your premise...yup...any time you play a game of any sort you are taking on a "role" pertinent to that game...I disagree with the conclusion. I don't think its a very useful standard to identify what is an isn't an RPG

(assuming there's any utility to that exercize anyway).

Valamir, I think you might be making a contextual error. Maybe.

There are many definitions of the word "role", and each of those definitions has shading and contextual applications.

I can say that my "role" at the company where I work is Tech Support.
I can say that my "role" in my family is as arbitrator.
I can say that my "role" in Monopoly is as a greedy land baron.
I can say that, as an actor, my "role" in the play is that of King Lear,
I can say that my "role" in the rpg, is Adrian Silber, Paradox Mage.

Each of the five above sentences uses the word "role" in fundamentally different ways. They are, actually, five different words, all represented by the same sequence of letters, r-o-l-e.

How can you determine which word is being used? By context.

Just like if I say that I am "dusting" the furniture to tidy up, it is very different than to say I am "dusting" the furniture for fingerprints.
In those contexts, the words representing by "d-u-s-t-i-n-g" have almost opposite meanings.

So, saying that we are playing a role in monopoly and saying that we are playing a role in an rpg is not the same. It's dangerously similar, but not equal.

Hope this helps.

Sindyr wrote: So, saying that we are playing a role in monopoly and saying that we are playing a role in an rpg is not the same. It's dangerously similar, but not equal.

Cool. :)

Ron Edwards wrote: * Ron tries to say Jon's point:
The association of real person to fictional character is the "central node" of the activity called role-playing. In Ron-speak, we're talking about Exploration of Character, particularly in terms of ownership per person.

Ron Edwards wrote: Thus playing Universalis would not be role-playing except insofar as the "ownership" issue gets established during play (which it does, according to the rules, but not right away).

Question for Jonathan: is GMing role-playing? Especially in the absence of the sort of favorite-villain or special-buddy GM-PC phenomenon?

* End of attempt

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: If it helps anything Jonathan, I definitely understand what you're saying conceptually...I'm just not certain I understand its relation to the definition of a role playing game.

Valamir wrote: So from where I'm sitting I definitely agree with your premise...yup...any time you play a game of any sort you are taking on a "role" pertinent to that game...I disagree with the conclusion. I don't think its a very useful standard to identify what is an isn't an RPG

(assuming there's any utility to that exercize anyway).

I getcha, Jonathan - thanks for the clarification.

I don't agree with you, but then again, I've already said in this thread that I probably don't know what I think about it all. That puts me into the untenable position of probably not agreeing with anyone's assessment, although Fang's post certainly rang my bells.

Grant, all I can say at the moment, re: taxonomy, is that "game" appears to me to be polyphyletic - it's used for a variety of things that are otherwise unconnected, except perhaps at a level that doesn't mean much for our analysis (like "living thing" if we were talking about organismal classification of birds).

Best,
Ron

Well, just to be clear, not any game. Trivial Pursuit requires no role-playing, for example.

Ha! Looked it up. The term "game," in biological classification, would be called a nomen nudum, meaning that the organisms in question already have perfectly good names, thank you, and the new name is either redundant, contradictory, or adds no new information.

Best,
Ron

I tried to stay out of this discussion for as long as possible, but I guess I'll chime in. first, a side note that sort of leads into the point I'm about to make:

Sindyr wrote: There is a significant reason that MtG as is does not count as a role, I think.

The "wizards" that we play are all exactly the same, ie start with the same life points, same number of cards in hand, etc...

The only difference is the deck, which is extrinsic to the character itself.

Fang wrote:
If you accept drifting Parker Brothers' Monopoly into a role-playing game, then no one can assume any rules are going to be adhered to and therefore any game can be used to play anything and are thus meaningless examples.

I don't think I agree, talysman.

If I am presented with a game, I know that I am quite capable of deciding fairly quickly if it is an RPG or not. This tells me that at some level, I understand the boundaries of what is an RPG and what is not. The only problem before me is to take the intuitive and internally hidden criteria for making that decision, and discover what it is.

A lot of truths are this way. Any time we feel we "know" and answer, there is usually a reason, that we can exhume from the depths of our thought proceses. Understanding the line that divides an RPG from a non-RPG is no different.

So I am going to stick with the contextual definition of "role" being the cornerstone of what all rpg's share, and all non-rpg's do not.

And actually, exploring this definition is probably the next worthwhile pursuit.

Sindyr wrote: I don't think I agree, talysman.

If I am presented with a game, I know that I am quite capable of deciding fairly quickly if it is an RPG or not. This tells me that at some level, I understand the boundaries of what is an RPG and what is not. The only problem before me is to take the intuitive and internal hidden criteria for making that decision, and discover what it is.

I should be more explicit.

Its not just that if I am presented with a game, I know that I am quite capable of deciding fairly quickly if it is an RPG or not.

Its that once I say "Yes", or "No", if someone asks "Why?", I will have reasons to tell them, reasons based not on whether or not it is similar to that (dreaded) rpg D&D, but based on categorical criteria that I note when making the judgement.

Unfortunately, if you ask me now what those criteria are, I can't tell - they are still internal. But faced with being *employed*, some of them become available for inspection.

Now, if we were all to actually be asked "Is this an RPG" about different games; our answers to the question "Why or why not" would probably solve our conundrum.

Thanks for all the replies, they really warm my oh-so-busy heart.

On to business: all this quibbling about Monopoly isn't refuting my point but making it; the game clearly has a shared "imaginary space." It also makes my more important point. As I implied about Freeform games, there are continuums each of us choose comfort zones in, Monopoly is much more structured and abstracted than most traditional games as opposed (in extreme) to Freeform; some people aren't comfortable saying it is a role-playing game, I'm fine with it being so (I haven't played it in a coupla decades so I wasn't too clear on how it worked).

Sindyr is obviously outside of his comfort zone when it comes to games that don't promote character-based play. I daresay he'll find Universalis to fail his definition of role-playing games. I don't; it's one of the main reasons I expanded that part of my comfort zone. I no longer have a problem with role-playing games that don't force you into a character-based "role." This is purely a difference in comfort zones, not a disagreement of what constitutes the defining qualities of role-playing games. Personally, I accept Universalis and other non-character-based role-playing games into the definition (I allow more of the continuum). Sindyr does not; hence his intention that "roles" or character-basis is inherent in all role-playing games (a smaller section of the same continuum).

And Sindyr? "Imaginary space" isn't my concept, it's the wording used in this thread. I personally call it Context. I write games that call for the players to interact "In Context" via characters, but I don't limit all role-playing games to just the kind I write. And I'll agree with you that you can't have (your restricted, and potentially misleading, term) "roles" without Context, but I’m comfortable with the idea that you can play a role-playing game with Context without forcing "roles" on the participants. (As pointed out, what about gamemasters? They do not have to play roles if they don't choose to; are they not playing role-playing games then?)

I never said that CRPGs weren't RPGs, I said that to some people they aren't; it's a matter comfort zone on the continuum of what constitutes sharing. Same goes for Tunnels & Trolls solo adventures; for some it falls into the comfort zone of role-playing games, for some it doesn't. (I don't remember anyone challenging LARPGs as not being RPGs; did I miss something?) To expand the range of examples, I must say that I consider civil war re-enactors as gaming; same is true for something called a "Rendezvous" (a little like a Ren Fest, but based upon the American Voyageur era). I obviously have a wide comfort zone about self-selection and rules in role-playing games.

As to CplFerro's suggestion, you might be missing the most important point. If the gamemaster is 'role-playing alone' will they ever share it? If not, I'd say it's just writing. If they do share it eventually, then it happens to be the same thing as CRPG writing, in other words delayed gaming. Again, a slightly wider comfort zone than some accept as role-playing games. But we have to consider character creation and scenario invention simply another part of role-playing gaming; they happen alone, but they get shared. Sharing is my point.

Chris seems to agree, although I have to say that Monopoly doesn't so much usurp shared "imaginary space" as it abstracts it. I believe is still qualifies as being on the frontiers of role-playing games, inside the comfort zone of some, outside of yours. (The straw man was trying to say that drifted rules represented the games in question.)

As far as the "role" issue goes, I'm not sure how Jonathan can say you must play a role in the game and then go on to say that Universalis and gamemastering are role-playing games, neither require roles (I’m probably reading it wrong). To add an example, I'd say Once Upon a Time (the card game) is a role-playing game in my comfort zone with the definition, because you have a shared "imaginary space" (add that to Monopoly, as I now understand it) and players interacting about it; I'm fairly certain it falls outside of some people's comfort zones, but I'm fine with that too. The true test of my point is that with as wide of comfort zone as I have, there aren't any exceptions to cause me problems. If you add a "role" requirement, Universalis rolls off the plate, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies in many minds (causing the problems with exceptions). The serious problem with elevating "role" to the primary or sole requirement is all of the things which 'don't count' that come tumbling in. Like the dating example, without the shared "imaginary space," you're playing a role but not a role-playing game. (And it is probably clear that you can’t say shared "imaginary space" is the same as "game," so using the three words – role...playing...game - with interpretation doesn’t seem to work.)

Fang Langford

Hey Fang, Ron,

Fang, I agree with most of your post, but I took you to task over sharing, which requires more than one person. Stick to talking about comfort zones and I am there with you.

Ron, that's priceless. 70-something posts into a thread, and it turns out we are not really saying anything. Actually, I think some of us are exploring what RPGs are not, but could be, but mostly I agree with you, as strange as that may sound.

Later,
Grant

Le Joueur wrote: As far as the "role" issue goes, I'm not sure how Jonathan can say you must play a role in the game and then go on to say that Universalis and gamemastering are role-playing games, neither require roles (I’m probably reading it wrong).

Fang Langford

Hey Fang,

Fang wrote:

Chris seems to agree, although I have to say that Monopoly doesn't so much usurp shared "imaginary space" as it abstracts it.

Fang said:

On to business: all this quibbling about Monopoly isn't refuting my point but making it; the game clearly has a shared "imaginary space." It also makes my more important point. As I implied about Freeform games, there are continuums each of us choose comfort zones in, Monopoly is much more structured and abstracted than most traditional games as opposed (in extreme) to Freeform; some people aren't comfortable saying it is a role-playing game, I'm fine with it being so (I haven't played it in a coupla decades so I wasn't too clear on how it worked).

Sindyr is obviously outside of his comfort zone when it comes to games that don't promote character-based play.

I daresay he'll find Universalis to fail his definition of role-playing games. I don't; it's one of the main reasons I expanded that part of my comfort zone. I no longer have a problem with role-playing games that don't force you into a character-based "role." This is purely a difference in comfort zones, not a disagreement of what constitutes the defining qualities of role-playing games. Personally, I accept Universalis and other non-character-based role-playing games into the definition (I allow more of the continuum). Sindyr does not; hence his intention that "roles" or character-basis is inherent in all role-playing games (a smaller section of the same continuum).

And Sindyr? "Imaginary space" isn't my concept, it's the wording used in this thread. I personally call it Context. I write games that call for the players to interact "In Context" via characters, but I don't limit all role-playing games to just the kind I write. And I'll agree with you that you can't have (your restricted, and potentially misleading, term) "roles" without Context, but I’m comfortable with the idea that you can play a role-playing game with Context without forcing "roles" on the participants. (As pointed out, what about gamemasters? They do not have to play roles if they don't choose to; are they not playing role-playing games then?)
I never said that CRPGs weren't RPGs, I said that to some people they aren't; it's a matter comfort zone on the continuum of what constitutes sharing. Same goes for Tunnels & Trolls solo adventures; for some it falls into the comfort zone of role-playing games, for some it doesn't. (I don't remember anyone challenging LARPGs as not being RPGs; did I miss something?) To expand the range of examples, I must say that I consider civil war re-enactors as gaming; same is true for something called a "Rendezvous" (a little like a Ren Fest, but based upon the American Voyageur era). I obviously have a wide comfort zone about self-selection and rules in role-playing games.

quozl wrote: It's quite simple, actually. We're defining "role" differently.

C. Edwards wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Chris seems to agree, although I have to say that Monopoly doesn't so much usurp shared "imaginary space" as it abstracts it.

This seems to come down to a difference in how we each conceptualize "imaginary space". From my POV Monopoly takes the abstract imaginary space and solidifies it in the form of board, money, token, cards, etc. making complete play of the game, start to finish, possible without ever entering the "imaginary space". That's my personal demarcation line for what is and is not an rpg by design.

Dear Mr. Langford:

In my RPG analysis, I concluded that ecstatic religious rites, standup performances like flirting and improv comedy, published-style RPGs, and, now, writing are all role-playing games, sharing a common structure, and only differing cosmetically.

Thus, ecstatic rites tend toward total psychic immersion, while published-style games and standup performances emphasis different sets of traditional fetishes. Solo writing amounts to roleplaying that isn't shared, then.

Thanks for bringing that up; I'd missed it.



Cpl Ferro

Actually, this discussion reminds me a lot of Wittgensteien's classic discussion of games (which he used as a metaphor for language in general). The definition of "role-playing game" (or any word, for that matter) is nebulous. We determine whether something is a role-playing game by comparing it to certain paradigmatic cases (like, D&D, for instance). Thus, any definition you choose will either be so narrow as to exclude things that should be considered role-playing games, or so broad as to include things that shouldn't be considered-role playing games. That's just the nature of language (try defining the word "red" you'll undoubtably run into trouble and disagreement when you look at colors that are near-orange and near-purple).

Hey Sindyr,

Good to hear you thinking; I believe you've taught me something. But first...

Monopoly

First of all, I think it's clear that Monopoly does promote skayniks, just that they do not have 'identities.' As I pointed out earlier, the minute you attempt to assess what your opponent is 'up to,' you've begun transacting in skayniks. That everything is treated in dollars and not chits forces it to be however degenerate of an "imaginary space." That means, unless you play the game in spite of the other players, you are using skayniks.

And that's my problem.

No matter how you reappoint the terminology, you can't seem to escape the fact that as you have it, it applies to a great many things outside of role-playing games (unless you make it circular, like saying "Skayniks are the 'roles' used in role-playing games"). You are dealing with 'money-holders' with whom you must transact to deprive them of their money in ways that are not philosophically different than 'real' money transactions (buying, selling, renting, billing...). Because of the abstract nature of the shared "imaginary space," they are skayniks. Just because they don't have independent names and identities does not mean they are not as taken on by the players. (The same is true when the gamemaster portrays 'the clerk' at a imaginary store as nothing more.)

And you are right about the analog between our points; we are talking about the same thing. That would be interface between participants and the shared "imaginary space." Your idea is that this can be accorded by some degenerate use of the concept of "roles" rather than focusing on the 'field of interaction' is what I find cumbersome and confusing.

I don't think you are taking my inclusion of Universalis or gamemaster to the full degree it is meant. Certainly both afford the use of skayniks, but neither requires it. A player in Universalis is not required to create or make use of skayniks. A gamemaster can easily run completely absent of skayniks. Try this thought experiment: the game is post-apocalyptic and there are only two survivors of mankind (a man and a woman who said she wouldn't date him if he were the last man on earth, for example). If there are five players, what skayniks do any of the others take on? All non-player characters are dead (and we'll leave out flashbacks for the sake of example). Does the gamemaster have the wind, the sunset, birds, and animals as skayniks? If you degenerate the definition of skayniks that far, it's nigh meaningless.

I have a distinct problem with your implication in Universalis that one "[identifies] and control one character more than others." As that is not required by the game (as I understand it), so you are drifting the rules away from what is given. As you can do exactly the same with Monopoly, I stand that you must reject (saying that drift beyond the rules doesn't count) or accept (saying that drift from the rules does count) both examples as role-playing games. This isn't a matter of 'what you imagine' (imagination isn't terribly inherently precise) unless you want to retract the idea the English trends more towards the accuracy of mathematics (there is no 'what you imagine' in mathematics). Besides, we aren't discussion language; there isn't language for what we're discussing. If anything, we are discussing philosophy (which has no absolutes).

Comfort Zones

All we have are our opinions.

I say there are no "roles."
You say I go too far.
I point out that I've exceeded your comfort zone with my opinion.

Here I am pointing out that "roles" is a continuum common to both our opinions even though our comfort zones there differ.

The concept of a comfort zone has every relevance here. What we are doing is discussing our opinions. Yours is that skayniks is a necessary ingredient in role-playing games, mine is that it isn't; neither is empirically true. Doesn't my implication that skayniks are unnecessary make you uncomfortable? Despite my intention to write in as dry and emotionless of tone (up to this paragraph at least) as I can, haven't you been reading it as an attack on your ideas?

That is far from my intent.

I accept that you include skayniks, "roles," or whatever you want to call the interaction between player and shared "imaginary space." It's not at issue. I reject it because I am not comfortable with the other implications that these terms carry, as 'baggage,' into any discussion of role-playing games. You will note however, that I go out of my way including it in the list of continuums that are used to judge role-playing games (and include my own opinion, my comfort zone, none the less). This means I do not reject your ideas; I accept them and disagree. I do not intend on changing your mind nor expect mine changed; that's why I pointed out each of us has our own comfort zones. I can't imagine saying that each has their own opinions and that we should look to what continuums these reside upon being confusing in the least.

Your classic music analogy offers a great example of the problem.

Sindyr wrote: It implies that this question is like asking if classical music is good or not. It is not that kind of question.

Sindyr wrote: GM's do play "roles", or skayniks. A lot of them. And even if they didn't, the GM is facilitating a game in which the players are.

Sindyr wrote: ...[If] one of the primary purposes of the game is to help the players play skayniks, then it is an RPG...

Fang, that was a good response, with a lot of interesting ideas. Let me think about them for a bit, and I will reply.

Hmm...

Just to be clear on the Universalis points, and why calling it a RPG might be contentious:

Create characters with unique Traits.

Speak in the voice of the characters, usually to other players who respond in the voice of the character that they are currently controlling.

Usually identify and control one character more than others. (Not required by the rules, but apparently a normal way to play)

Chronicle the development of the skayniks of the main characters.

Mike Holmes wrote:

quozl wrote: It's quite simple, actually. We're defining "role" differently.

You're probably going to have to use Ron's four layered Role Taxonomy, then.

Mike

Le Joueur wrote: Or a play, or a psychotherapy session, or a customer service training

Dear SrGrvsaLot:

The nebulous nature of red is precisely why, for the purposes of establishing its truth, a Platonic conception of "redness" is indispensable. For regardless of our classificatory trouble, red exists, even if the object my mind associates it with does not.

Let’s ask something similar: What is life? It obviously subsumes abiotic action, like chemical action and so on, but it does things which the abiotic does not do. Life (and by implication, anything at all) is simply not definable, in sensory terms. And yet life exists.

If there is truth, it must be knowable to be relevant, and, so, we must be able to define the difference between life and non-life, or red and non-red, and so on, to know them. We can only do this in terms of principles, defining life as a particular /intent/ in nature, just as light has its own /intent/ as shown when it bends when moving from one medium to another in order to take the route of least time. The universe is so constructed as to obey these intentions.

So, to be discussed in terms of truth, the quality of redness must be such an intent, associated, like all other qualities like bigness, smallness, hardness, etc., with the soul itself, rather than any particular sense-object.

Then, I ask what the intent or principle of roleplaying games are, as this thread at least implicitly proposes that they have one. It must be the “spirit of the game”, which I define here, in terms of the common gaming structure I’ve discovered:

Spirit of the Game: The principle employed by the GM, when choosing between options of transformation. It is an amalgam of the GM’s knowledge of real physical principles, /including the interacting principles of personality characteristic in the participants themselves/,

(1) as they relate to evoking desirable spiritual states within the context of the game manifold, and

(2) as they relate to the participants’ expectations regarding, preferences of, and faith in the game mechanics.

When hunting for RPGs, then, one looks for whether the activity in question contains that sort of principle of action. Denying it exists for fault of language, is to misunderstand the nature of principles entirely, as they can never be defined in terms of axioms. Language at best serves as a metaphor for the principle involved.



Cpl Ferro

Thanks for adding this CplFerro (is that short for Corporal Ferro?)

And while I enjoy a discussion of truth and epistomology as much as the next philosopher, we may be getting a bit far from the thread.

This does score on the target though:

CplFerro wrote: Spirit of the Game: The principle employed by the GM, when choosing between options of transformation. It is an amalgam of the GM’s knowledge of real physical principles, including the interacting principles of personality characteristic in the participants themselves,

In an old thread I tried to form a definition of "game." That effort came to naught when I realized that any definition would have to cover two very different things: a game as a set of rules and/or equipment for play (game-object), and a game as an actual episode of play (game-event).

We're running into the exact same problem here. Even if we were able to identify game-events as role-playing or non role-playing game-events with certainty (say, by such characteristics as shared imaginative space, role individuality, and others discussed here), we then have to make the rather arbitrary decision whether or not the game-object (such as Monopoly or Universalis) is a role-playing game. That is, we must do so if we want to be able to say things like "Monopoly (or whatever) is/is not a role playing game" which by default are usually understood to refer to the game-object.

Sounds rather hopeless to me. It's pretty clear that "Game-object X is a role-playing game if every game-event using game-object X must always be a role playing game" is way too exclusive and "Game-object X is not a role-playing game if no game-event using game-object X can ever be a role playing game" is way too inclusive. Any more reasonable division is going to be a judgment call, or an estimation of actual play statistics that are unlikely to ever be available.

- Walt

quozl wrote: Can I get a link? I seem to recall it but can't find it just now.

Mike Holmes wrote:

quozl wrote: Can I get a link? I seem to recall it but can't find it just now.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2802

Hey Fang,

It seems to me that some of your statements under ‘Sharing’ are contradictory. Are some of these computer games and choose-your-path books you mention solo affairs? If so, how can play of one player affect that of another? I am probably just misunderstanding what you’ve written.

Here is my continuum breakdown:

Number of Players: Since I consider solo adventure books to be rpgs I would have to say only one player is required. The thing with these solo books though is that there is a GM present in some sense. Solo adventure books work in reverse from most standard rpgs in that all possible available stories are already pre-determined. The designer/GM hands you the book and basically says “This is the extent of all the player decisions and the extent of all the effects of those decisions that I’m willing to allow in my story.”

Sharing: This isn’t a required category for me in any sense except in that the “imaginary space” be shared by all participants. It is not necessary for all participants to be present in that “imaginary space” at the same time or to the same degree. (i.e. solo adventure books).

Influence: It must be possible for decisions, actions, and events that take place in the “imaginary space” to influence aspects of the game removed from that “imaginary space” without altering the game as designed. Examples of such aspects would include tokens, maps or boards, dice, etc. This is what I require to deem a game an “rpg by player fiat”. This is certainly possible in games such as Clue, Risk, and Monopoly.

Context: I require for “imaginary space” to be a necessity for me to deem a game an “rpg by design”. Games that can be played purely ‘token style’ don’t qualify (but they do generally fall into what I categorize as “rpg by player fiat”).

“Roles“: As I understand the term I don’t require them.

Hmm, there have been a few more posts since I started this reply.

Walt wrote:

In an old thread I tried to form a definition of "game." That effort came to naught when I realized that any definition would have to cover two very different things: a game as a set of rules and/or equipment for play (game-object), and a game as an actual episode of play (game-event).

Dear Mr. Langford:

Corporal Ferro, yes, as a nom de plume.

That introduction was needed to show in brief how I understand the term “principle” in that very quote.

Isn’t this how an apparently GM-less game would work?: With at least two players, at junctures implied by the social interaction governed by the spirit of the game, any player may suggest sensory input, or the outcome of the current situation, which any of the other players may veto. A deadlock may be resolved by recourse to pre-established mechanics.

Compare:

“Multiple GMs”: With at least one player, and at least two GMs, where the GMs form a distinct group who cede power to each other in pre-established or improvised manners, as if among their circle they were a group of players with no GMs.

Thus, “GM-less” means that the mantle of GM-hood passes momentarily to each player, at each juncture, giving the option of tacit assent or veto. Even though a GM-less LARP appears to invest each player with permanent times of GM-hood regarding his own character, realised whenever he speaks or moves, these actions must still be deemed as within pre-established bounds by the group as a whole.



Cpl Ferro

Hi there,

Corporal Ferro ("iron-body"), the concept you've laid out was elaborated at the Forge some time ago by Emily Care. We've taken to calling it "GM-full" play, and it's the essence of several recent game designs, such as Universalis.

To all, this thread is badly in need of splitting. I'm looking at it in hopes of finding useful break-points, but before that happens (if it does), I urge everyone to consider beginning new threads with sub-topics from this one.

Best,
Ron

Chris Edwards wrote: Do you think my separation, and the basis of that separation, for “rpg by design” and “rpg by player fiat” are useful for defining that division or just another completely subjective designation?

Hiya Chris,

C. Edwards wrote: It seems to me that some of your statements under ‘Sharing’ are contradictory. Are some of these computer games and choose-your-path books you mention solo affairs? If so, how can play of one player affect that of another? I am probably just misunderstanding what you’ve written.

C. Edwards wrote: Here is my continuum breakdown:

Number of Players:
Sharing:
Influence:
Context:
"Roles":

C. Edwards wrote:

Walt wrote: In an old thread I tried to form a definition of "game." That effort came to naught when I realized that any definition would have to cover two very different things: a game as a set of rules and/or equipment for play (game-object), and a game as an actual episode of play (game-event).

Do you think my separation, and the basis of that separation, for "rpg by design" and "rpg by player fiat" are useful for defining that division or just another completely subjective designation? I’ve been staring at it too long to tell at this point.