Is D&D a Game

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would argue that D&D has been mis-classified as a game. Just like the "game of tag" is not really a game.

Be right back -- going to start the "Is Tag art?" thread.

 

[TheUltramark]

I cannot get my head around a scenario in which d&D is not a game.

One thing I found interesting about the eleventyfour million definitions posted, and opinions was the idea that a game has to have a winner or loser, then the arguments about video games. Interesting. Pac-Man ... not a game - - Super Mario Bros. ... game

that just doesn't seem right to me

 

[Janx]

That sounds like a "competition", not a "game". I'll agree that D&D is not (necessarily) a competition. But I wouldn't limit "game" to competitive activity. It excludes too many things generally considered games, like "Peek-a-boo" and "Sims".

To me, a "game" is simply an enjoyable diversion with no direct practical application. (It may have indirect applications, like games that are used to help train people.) And under that definition, D&D is a game.

in my just prior post (because I didn't see this one) i clarified that I have apparently defined "Competitive" game as a category.

I'm not sure having a practical application is even a factor, as we know there can be training and learning games.

One thing I'd like to see differentiated, is activites that have the word "game" in them which truly are games, and activities that have that word tacked on through tradition, as a colloquialism.

Meaning, if I was truly right that Tag wasn't a game, people saying "let's go play a game of tag" aren't going to get shot by the WordNazi's. But we as people interested in the true categorization do recognize what is and is NOT really a game, despite the word used.

Case in point, the dictionary would say that when your kid plays with his toy cars that he is playing a game of pretend. I say BS. He's playing pretend. There's no rules, and there's no intent for their to be rules. Even if you join in, and he says "no, you can't do that with the Dukes of Hazard car" its not because he's playing a game, its because your doing something that conflicts with the story he's telling.

Unless I'm wrong (which has been proven before in this thread), playing Pretend is not the same as playing a Game, despite people tacking the word "game" on there.

D&D takes the concept of Pretend, and adds a bunch of formal rules.

 

[wrecan]

I'm not sure having a practical application is even a factor, as we know there can be training and learning games.

I addressed that.

Unless I'm wrong (which has been proven before in this thread), playing Pretend is not the same as playing a Game, despite people tacking the word "game" on there.

Well, since you admit your definition of "game" is nonstandard, I'm not sure how you could be proven wrong. It's just not a definition anybody else is likely to adopt.

 

[Umbran]

One thing I'd like to see differentiated, is activites that have the word "game" in them which truly are games, and activities that have that word tacked on through tradition, as a colloquialism.

If "game" were first used as a technical word, with your specific meaning, that had drifted into common parlance, I could see defending it in this way. But, I think you have it backwards - as I understand it, historically, the term had the colloquial, less stringent, meaning first. Those other activities don't have it tacked on. They've always had it. Your use of the term is the Johnny-come-lately. Defining games as you are seems to be largely a result of the rise of the mathematics of "game theory", which refers to such specific situations. But Game Theory only took off in the 1940s and 1950s. The word is far, far older.

If you adopt a common-use word, and then use it as a specific jargon, it is not very sensible to get huffy at all the folks who just merrily go along and use the original definition.

 

[Croesus]

Here's my simple definition:
Game is a competitive activity in which one side wins and one side loses or in which a player has 2 possible outcomes Win or Lose, then Monopoly and just about every board, card, sports game is covered.

So, per your definition, if I'm playing D&D with friends, it's not a game.

But if I play the exact same adventure, with the exact same GM, players, and characters in a convention tournament, it suddenly becomes a game?

I agree with wrecan, you seem to be defining competitions, not games.

 

[TheUltramark]

of all the things to argue about.....

I really dont care how many definitions or big words or technical terms anyone throws out, for me, d&D IS a game.

end of line

 

[BriarMonkey]

D & D is a game, sub-categorized as a role-playing game.

Monopoly is a game, sub-categorized as a board game.

Halo 2 is a game, sub-categorized as a video game.

Football is a game, sub-categorized as a sport (otherwise, why is it a Football game?)

Fishing is a sport to some, and not to others.

Life is a game to some, and not to others.

Your perceptions color your reality.

Why worry about what is and is not a game? If you're enjoying the game, play it.

 

[Janx]

If "game" were first used as a technical word, with your specific meaning, that had drifted into common parlance, I could see defending it in this way. But, I think you have it backwards - as I understand it, historically, the term had the colloquial, less stringent, meaning first. Those other activities don't have it tacked on. They've always had it. Your use of the term is the Johnny-come-lately. Defining games as you are seems to be largely a result of the rise of the mathematics of "game theory", which refers to such specific situations. But Game Theory only took off in the 1940s and 1950s. The word is far, far older.

If you adopt a common-use word, and then use it as a specific jargon, it is not very sensible to get huffy at all the folks who just merrily go along and use the original definition.

So to a Game Theory person, these distinctions matter.

To an English Major or a Psychologist, everything your kid does is a game.
Which to me seems that the definition is so broad as to be useless. hence my amateur attempt to wrangle a better definition.

 

[Gryph]

Wil Wright, creator of the Sims series, wrote an essay a while back (sorry, I can't be bothered to google a link right now) that theorized a difference between games and toys. His definition of the difference, like yours, relied on the codified existence of a "win" condition.

IIRC, his reason for drawing this distinction was to apply some useful criteria to computer game design; positing that the video games and video toys by their nature had differing design requirements.

As a developer, I found the article interesting and useful in a design context; but, like Umbran and others, I don't think it is a useful definition in a broader social context. The generally accepted and long standing definitions of game are sufficient unto the day. By those D&D is a game, except to Wil Wright who thinks it's a toy.