[1st Draft] Understanding RPGs Part One

[mythusmage]

Wow, I didn't know we had quite so many lawyers here. With so much nitpicking, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the most simple error in the definition: "people assume the role of another person".

Multiple people assuming the role of one person?

Now, here's a note - exactly how nitpicky we need to be on definitions really depends on what purpose this definition will serve. For instance, to be 100% accurate, the person need not assume the role of a person. I've seen games where a person takes on the role of an internal bodily organ, or a person takes on the role of a nation-state.

Should we revise the definition one more step, though? Who is the target audience? If it's folks who have never played the game at all, probably not. Take one step at a time - introduce them to the concept of playing a person, the more odd things can come later. If the target audience is people who already play, though, then rewording to break them out of old trains of thought might be worthwhile.

Now this requires a personal response.

After giving it some thought, I find myself agreeing with you about the "problem" phrase. So let's reword it to, "...where a person assumes the role of another..."

Where "person" is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that an organ of the body can be a person, if it has a distinct personality. The same with a Nation-State. So long as you have a person assaying the role, and the rules that allow him to, then you have a bonafide imaginary person and so a roleplaying game.

Target audience, newbies or old timers? Yes. Understanding Roleplaying Games is intended to serve as an introduction to RPGs, and as a way to get the Old Thespians to look at RPGs in a different way. All will become clearer as more essays get posted.

 

[Umbran]

Where "person" is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that an organ of the body can be a person, if it has a distinct personality.

Which suggests to me that you missed some of the point. What you, or I, consider to be a person isn't the issue here. You are the author. You know what you mean. But the audience cannot read your mind. What will the audience think you mean by "person"?

I'll tell you this - your average reader probably won't get from the context that your definition of "person" will include a fictionally sentient spleen He will probably assume that "person in an imaginary world" is like what he sees in most novels, TV shows, and movies.

Now, for your purposes at this point of the essay series, you may not care that the reader has a somewhat narrower conception of what constitutes a person. I raised the point only because part of your stated goal seems to be to shake up preconceptions, and folks do have preconceptions on what a "person" is.

 

[mythusmage]

You know...

Another revision to make. It's now time to take what's been said here, and use it to revise Part One. Expect the 2nd draft of this essay soon.

Feel free to continue the discussion here, but don't expect any feedback from yours truly. I'll be busy.

 

[rounser]

You know...

I think you lot have nitpicked Alan into submission.

What an ironic fate for a reviewer.

 

[herald]

But, since Fictional has other meanings in other contexts that Imaginary does not, and so could confuse the good reader, I will stick with Imaginary. Hope that makes things clear.

And that will be a fatal mistake. RPGs cover a broad scope of genre.

D20 Modern, Spycraft, Mage, Vampire, Werewolf are a good example of why Fictional is a stronger definition than imaginary.

The settings for these games are very similar to the world as we know it. When you describe these settings to people you use very concepts that really exist in the here and now. If I was to say that your characters are going to the Easter Islands, and used real maps and source books for travelers and even involved the names of real people, I wouldn't be sending them to an Imaginary place or setting, nor am I sending them to an Imaginary version of it, I am however sending them to a Fictionalized version of it since what I was doing had some basis in fact.

Imaginary is to create from whole cloth something that didn't exist, ankhegs, mindflayers, ect.

The general public (atleast in the US) have a better concept of Fictionalized concepts rather than Imaginary. They see it every night on the TV in the form of entertainment.

NYPD Blue, West Wing, 24, Law and Order, all of these shows exist in a fictionalized setting, complete with very real world counterparts in locations, events and story lines. Ask the people who whatch these shows where they occur and they will tell you.

Shows like Star Trek, Zena and the like are more Fantasy based, but have ties to conceptsor legends that exist in the past or a prediction of our future. These are closed to imaginary then fiction, but they aren't created wholecloth from somebodys ideas.

 

[mythusmage]

The 2nd Draft of the essay has been posted. Hopefully the link will work.

For Herald's information, the word, "imaginary" works for my purposes in that it covers products of the imagination, even when such products are based on the real world. In addition, "fictionalized" would tend to confuse folks, as another pointed out. Even if "fictionalized" was more accurate, the confusion its use would entail would pretty much negate the reason for using it.

To make a long story short, I'll be sticking with "imaginary".

Finally, you're all welcome to keep discussing things, but I'll be posting over on the new thread.

 

[pensiv]

BTW, if you know where McCloud's web site can be found (I lost the URL)

that one's easy www.scottmccloud.com