Topic: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Started by: Doctor Xero
Started on: 2/15/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 2/15/2004 at 3:32am, Doctor Xero wrote:
a definitive definition of roleplay?
in response to one of Doctor Xero's questions clehrich wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "roleplay." This is such an open concept, especially here at the Forge, that without my knowing what you mean by it it's very difficult to parse your example.
Just what ~is~ the definitive definition of roleplaying at the Forge?
Doctor Xero
On 2/15/2004 at 3:34am, Paganini wrote:
Re: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Doctor Xero wrote:in response to one of Doctor Xero's questions clehrich wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "roleplay." This is such an open concept, especially here at the Forge, that without my knowing what you mean by it it's very difficult to parse your example.
Just what ~is~ the definitive definition of roleplaying at the Forge?
Doctor Xero
42
On 2/15/2004 at 3:43am, neelk wrote:
RE: Re: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Doctor Xero wrote:
Just what ~is~ the definitive definition of roleplaying at the Forge?
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but, following Wittgenstein: meaning is use. You can't come up with a definitive description of games (which includes everything from chess to D&D to duck-duck-goose), other than "the sorts of things people are talking about when they say 'game'". Likewise with the smaller category of roleplaying games. I read clehrich as saying that if you want to discuss some specific features about rpgs, you need to either describe specifically what it is you want to talk about, or come up with some examples that exhibit the quality you are interested in (if you can't figure out how to describe it yet).
On 2/15/2004 at 3:47am, Christopher Kubasik wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Hello Doctor,
As far as I know, there is no defintion of roleplay at the Forge. The fact that new games keep getting built here that crack last year's assumptions of what "happens" during a game has probably made everybody a little guy shy about trying to nail it down.
That doesn't mean people haven't tried.
I did a thread search, and the boldest attempt I found first was in a thread called, "What makes an RPG?" (I'm sure there are others...)
It, of course, ended up going all over the place. But on the fourth page (here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5934&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45 ), second post down, there's a post from Le Jour that I think stakes out the wide boundries of RPGs pretty well. The variety of what an RPG can be within the staked boundries is pretty varied, however.
Christopher
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 5934
On 2/15/2004 at 4:52am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
There is no official defintion. A definition that I have been fiddling with is roleplaying is a social activity that takes place in a shared imagined space. The elements can be used in terms of what they are.
This may not be everything, but it is certainly something.
On 2/16/2004 at 1:09am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
What Jack said.
That is, although it's not official, I'd say that role playing games are probably best defined thus:
The mutual creation of events within a shared imaginary space through manipulation of imagined elements.
Anyone have an issue with that?
--M. J. Young
On 2/16/2004 at 2:33am, Noon wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Personally, what I need a definition for is practical purposes only. So at a practical level my view is: An RPG is anything that encourages taking on a role, sufficiently enough to forfill my requirements.
Note, that could be solitare(yes indeed!). It could be chess, it could be monopoly, it could be Diablo II, it could be never winter nights, table top D&D, or whatever other RPG book. It depends on what my requirements are.
It just has to encourage the engagement of role (and doing so doesn't even have to be it's main focus) to a certain level. And as there is no universally agreed threshold IMO, for me it has to meet my set threshold, to be roleplay.
Of course, the engaging of role then trickles down to the creation of events in imaginary space. Because the role wants to eat and sleep, or whatever.
On 2/16/2004 at 3:01am, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Is there an official Forge site for official Forge vocabulary? I have noticed shared interpretations floating about for terms for which I knew somewhat different (or less specified) definitions before coming to The Forge.
Doctor Xero
On 2/16/2004 at 3:25am, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
You are posting there.
On 2/16/2004 at 4:07am, clehrich wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Xero,
If you read the recent Ron articles, they all end with big glossaries. That might go a long way.
Chris Lehrich
On 2/16/2004 at 4:21am, Rich Forest wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
The closest you're going to find, for now, is the glossaries included at the end of the Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism articles, along with the foundational definitions included in "GNS and other matters." The articles section is here. Here are some of the major articles, in the order Ron posted them.
GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory
Simulationism: The Right to Dream
Gamism: Step On Up
Narrativism: Story Now
Of course, that is a lot of reading. It does provide a good overview of the whole model and a lot of the terminology that is shared by posters here. Other than that, I also just generally recomment browsing old discussions and reading ones that look interesting. There are a lot of important discussions that have proven central in adding to the vocabulary.
And of course, the other way to learn the local parlance is to just keep on doin' what you're doin'. Of course you'll use terms in different ways than what they mean here, at the beginning. But if it's a sticking point, someone will swoop in to clarify what the term usually means around here ;-)
Rich
Forge Reference Links:
On 2/16/2004 at 4:30am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
What a fascinating coincidence that the Forge Glossay (alpha version) will posted during the following week or two.
Best,
Ron
On 2/16/2004 at 10:14am, pete_darby wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
M. J. Young wrote: What Jack said.
That is, although it's not official, I'd say that role playing games are probably best defined thus:
The mutual creation of events within a shared imaginary space through manipulation of imagined elements.
Anyone have an issue with that?
--M. J. Young
Hmm... I'd want "through structured systems" in there somewhere, to exclude theatre improvisation, which is very like role playing games, but sufficiently different for the difference to be definable.
With the usual local provisos that a structured system can be as easily a social approval system as dice & tables.
On 2/16/2004 at 1:38pm, Itse wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
I'd like to see a definition which talks about pretty concrete things. A computer game is a game which is played on a computer. A car-game is a game in which people drive cars. A football-game is a game which more or less uses the FIFA-rules.
"A good definition is an abstract definition of something concrete." (I don't know where that's from, but I like it. Maybe I even came up with it myself.) Problem is, of course, that roleplaying by definition is a lot about the imagined and abstract.
These RPGnet articles titled "The Fine Art of Roleplaying" by Jonathan Walton offer a lot to think about on the subject I'd say. (Note that it has several parts, linked from the bottom of the page.) But let me just point out something: There is no definite definition for most arts. What is the definition of theater? How do you define music?
From the article
"The history of art illustrates this situation over and over again, with non-representational art, found art, and conceptual art all reacting against established understandings of what was and wasn't art."
If you ask me, we should try to come up with satisfactory definitions of the subcultures of roleplaying, "genres" if you'd like. By "satisfactory" I mean "people can accept belonging into". Punk metal and opera are very different kinds of music, and it's very difficult to have a meaningful conversation about both of them at the same time. Same goes for roleplaying. It's very difficult to talk about roleplaying, if you have to simultaneously describe miniature-based first-person wargames and a systemless live-action game where each character is a single emotion.
On 2/16/2004 at 2:15pm, pete_darby wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
But even there, in the two extreme examples, you have the mapping on one player - one character (reading "emotions" as "emotions anthropomorphised", or else how could you play?), which actually makes including them together less problematic than, say, Universalis or Everyone is John fitting under the same banner as Baron Munchausen, or indeed Aria Worlds, where players can play whole countries.
Of course, one answer is that they aren't all what would be understood as RPG's (I'd argue that Baron Munchausen isn't, for example, as it requires no shared imaginative space between players). But I'd argue heartily against the suggestion that the field is so nebulous that it can't be covered by a simple, inclusive statement.
Frex, what problem with this, a dicitonary defintion of music:
The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
(my problem with it is that it excludes Cage's silent pieces, which I'd argue are music, by omitting "and silences" after sounds...)
The similar entry for art runs into a whole train wreck of terms like beauty, which sure as shit aren't necessary to art in my world. But RPG's aren't as nebulous as encapsulating the whole of art in one term: I think we could al have stabs at defining music, theatre or literature (in terms of a field, not value judgements), and I think MJ's statement (with my proviso, natch) should cover pretty much all of our bases.
What we also could do with is a quick defintion of "conventional RPG's", so we can quickly stop every thread that starts "rpg's do XYZ!" hitting the old "Universalis doesn't!" "Well every game that does XYZ does!" frustration.
Going away to search for the threads that define RPG convention... but as a short list:
1. One Gm (rules referee, world builder, NPC player, scenario designer)
2. Multiple "players"
3. One PC per player
4. Combat intensive play
5. Dice based task resolution
6. "fantastic" genres (High fantasy, space opera, superhero, as opposed to historical, soap opera & techno thriller).
And as for defining by concrete examples... if the games are played with shared imaginative space, would you call them Shared-Imagination games? Even by your examples, football means different things to those odd people across the water who pick the thing up almost as if they were playing rugby...
On 2/17/2004 at 12:40pm, Itse wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
I could accept that. But I bet there are those who'd say music is not necessarily continuous, or unified, and I might say that there's plenty of music which is certainly not evocative, and isn't always even meant to be. (Like muzak, which is specifically designed to create very little emotional response. Or radio-format pop.)
And as for defining by concrete examples... if the games are played with shared imaginative space, would you call them Shared-Imagination games?
I could. It could even be a better name. ('Imagination Games' would be shorter.) Then you could limit 'roleplaying' to mean the traditional sort and again there would be happiness and sunshine.
Roleplaying in general could be defined through the fact that the game 'happens' mainly in the imagination; that is, by definition in roleplaying the imagined realm is the primary one, and everything else (dice, stats, dungeon-maps...) is secondary. It would nicely rule out mmorpg's, board games, card games and such.
Even by your examples, football means different things to those odd people across the water who pick the thing up almost as if they were playing rugby...
Well, personally I'd just direct them to a basic anatomy lesson. "Lesson one: that thing you use to hold and pass the ball is called a 'hand'. Your 'feet' are those things you stand on."
On 2/17/2004 at 8:19pm, Doctor Xero wrote:
RE: a definitive definition of roleplay?
Ron Edwards wrote: What a fascinating coincidence that the Forge Glossay (alpha version) will posted during the following week or two.
Best,
Ron
Thank you one and all for the input on Forge vocabulary.
Now, if only someone would give me a definitive definition of "snarky" . . .
Doctor Xero
On 2/18/2004 at 11:07pm, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Re: a definitive definition of roleplay?
neelk wrote: I can't speak for anyone but myself, but, following Wittgenstein: meaning is use.
Don't go following Wittgenstein too much, Neel, or I'll have to stop talking to you :)
His work has been heavily abused recently in aesthetics, thanks to Weitz and Kennick using Wittgenstein's work to claim that art can't ever be properly defined. It took us 30 years to dig ourselves out of that pit...