Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Maxperson said:

You can keep pretending that moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, controlling NPCs and deciding consequences, but it won't ever be true. False Equivalences are false.

Click to expand...

And strawmen are strawmen. Never once said moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, I said the role of "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going" is common to all games if you're insisting that if it's not assigned to a single person it still exists in a shared format. I mean, if you're going to try argument by informal fallacy, it really helps if you can do it without committing them yourself. Do yourself a favor, stop using the titles of the fallacies, instead, if you think you see one, argue why it's fallacious instead of just throwing out the title. For one, you'll realize you have only a loose grasp on the fallacies. For two, you'll be less likely to do the above.

Now, if you want to shift your argument to be that an element of RPGs involves the creation of fictional scenes where the play will take place, then that's very interesting and, I think, and excellent observation. But, it's not currently tied to either the working definition of a GM (A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going) nor do I think it needs to be. It's a good point standing by itself, and allows for games where this task is shared and where it is consolidated to a single role. Tying it to the GM's role and then having to modify the definition of GM to be something that can be shared evenly yet still be distinct is a path towards arguing for special exceptions.

Ovinomancer said:

I said the role of "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going" is common to all games if you're insisting that if it's not assigned to a single person it still exists in a shared format.

Click to expand...

Yeeeaaah, that's not the definition of DM/GM, though.

"game·mast·er
/ˈɡā(m)ˌmastər/
noun
noun: game master

a person who organizes and oversees a role-playing game, in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."

When those players in Fiasco create scenes, decide results, and play NPCs for the scene of the active player, they are stepping out of the role of player and into the GM role.

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I feel like you care more about the technical definition than about if a GM or other adjudicator/facilitator is actually required.

The way Fiasco works, no one would ever say there are 5 GMs. Also, there are other games that we can list besides Fiasco that don’t require a GM. I mentioned Microscope just a while ago, and that doesn’t require a GM. Nor does Kingdom, another RPG by the same author, Ben Robbins.

Let’s not get hung up on semantics and start quoting definitions at people. There are enough games that don’t require a GM that we shouldn’t include it in the list of essential things for a RPG.

Fiasco seems like an outlier though. Even lots of my friends who play games with more innovative approaches to GMing, would tend to classify it as on the periphery or outside RPGs, and getting into different territory. I am happy to include it, since it is an unusual game that is clearly spawned from RPG soil. But I think this is a case of exceptions not breaking rules. I just don't think you can have a viable definition of RPG without the gamemaster role being addressed (even if that is something like "...especially games with a human referee."

Bedrockgames said:

Fiasco seems like an outlier though. Even lots of my friends who play games with more innovative approaches to GMing, would tend to classify it as on the periphery or outside RPGs, and getting into different territory. I am happy to include it, since it is an unusual game that is clearly spawned from RPG soil. But I think this is a case of exceptions not breaking rules. I just don't think you can have a viable definition of RPG without the gamemaster role being addressed (even if that is something like "...especially games with a human referee."

Click to expand...

Okay....why not? What would a viable definition sound like to you?

I think the role is going to be vital to most games, but looking online there are dozens and dozens of games that eschew the role. I don’t know how we can consider it essential when that’s the case.

Not unless we narrow the definition down accordingly, which doesn’t seem right to me.

hawkeyefan said:

Okay....why not? What would a viable definition sound like to you?

I think the role is going to be vital to most games, but looking online there are dozens and dozens of games that eschew the role. I don’t know how we can consider it essential when that’s the case.

Not unless we narrow the definition down accordingly, which doesn’t seem right to me.

Click to expand...

I will use a music analogy. Heavy Metal as a genre of music features a lot of essential elements. I would include obvious things like distorted guitar. But also I would include a tendency toward minor keys (and most people do include this in any definition of the genre). But there are subgenres of metal that break the minor key thing. A lot of power metal leans of major keys. There is nothing stopping you from writing a heavy metal album in all major keys. People would probably still regard you as metal (though you could be trodding onto pop territory for sure). The existence of exceptions like that don't break the general rule that minor keys are an essential aspect of heavy metal. A band can have 6 of the 7 essential elements and still be regarded as heavy metal. I would put games like fiasco into that category. It has many of the other essential elements, maybe it lacks a GM, but I don't think its existence now somehow makes GMs less essential.

Also just to comment on the use of the word essential. I think generally we don't want to think in terms of essential qualities if the aim is a descriptive definition (which I think it should be). This is why I'd favor a definition that honestly tries to describe the RPG landscape. Clearly most RPGs have a gamemaster, and most RPGs do feature players playing a single character. So "A game where players typically assume the role of a single character in a world, setting or story, especially with a game master acting as referee or storyteller".

hawkeyefan said:

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I feel like you care more about the technical definition than about if a GM or other adjudicator/facilitator is actually required.

The way Fiasco works, no one would ever say there are 5 GMs. Also, there are other games that we can list besides Fiasco that don’t require a GM. I mentioned Microscope just a while ago, and that doesn’t require a GM. Nor does Kingdom, another RPG by the same author, Ben Robbins.

Let’s not get hung up on semantics and start quoting definitions at people. There are enough games that don’t require a GM that we shouldn’t include it in the list of essential things for a RPG.

Click to expand...

I didn't. I corrected someone quoting a wrong definition at me.

hawkeyefan said:

@Maxperson I feel like you care more about the technical definition than about if a GM or other adjudicator/facilitator is actually required.

The way Fiasco works, no one would ever say there are 5 GMs. Also, there are other games that we can list besides Fiasco that don’t require a GM. I mentioned Microscope just a while ago, and that doesn’t require a GM. Nor does Kingdom, another RPG by the same author, Ben Robbins.

Let’s not get hung up on semantics and start quoting definitions at people. There are enough games that don’t require a GM that we shouldn’t include it in the list of essential things for a RPG.

Click to expand...

This is from a short article by the creator of Microscope in describing his game, "In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play."

https://rpggeek.com/thread/716449/share-game-microscope

Everybody gets to be a GM in that game, just like in other similar shared games like Fiasco. Since Kingdom is by the same author who described Microscope as bringing the fun of being a GM to the table, I'm going to bet it's just like the other two.

Maxperson said:

This is from a short article by the creator of Microscope in describing his game, "In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play."

https://rpggeek.com/thread/716449/share-game-microscope

Everybody gets to be a GM in that game, just like in other similar shared games like Fiasco. Since Kingdom is by the same author who described Microscope as bringing the fun of being a GM to the table, I'm going to bet it's just like the other two.

Click to expand...

So what’s your point? That Microscope is not an RPG? Or that GMless RPGs don’t exist because players in Microscope share some responsibilities that would fall to the GM in other games?

I think one of the essential requirements of the role of GM is that it performs different functions from the rest of the participants; wouldn’t you agree?