[1st Draft] Understanding RPGs Part One

[alsih2o]

RPG

why not define it as "a Game where someone Plays a Role"????

 

[Thanee]

Well, I suppose a definition of RPG should also answer the question to a degree. "A game where someone plays a role" doesn't really tell much about how it is done.

What is a roleplaying game?

A game where someone plays a role.

Oh, like acting?

Well...

Bye
Thanee

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, I suppose a definition of RPG should also answer the question to a degree. "A game where someone plays a role" doesn't really tell much about how it is done.

What is a roleplaying game?

A game where someone plays a role.

Oh, like acting?

When performed as part of a game, yes.

 

[pensiv]

RPG

why not define it as "a Game where someone Plays a Role"????

because that's not defining a Roleplaying Game, that's just rearranging the words. There's a word for using the term itself to define the term, but I don't remember what it is.

But Clay, Thanee and jmucchiello force me to address an interesting point. In order to define Roleplaying Games, you have to analyze the words role, play/playing, and game.

Improvisational theatre was mentioned, but you need a definition that does not include acting, because that is not the same as roleplaying games; thus, you need to make a distinction that this is a game, not merely playing a role.

Most often with table-top RPGs, the player is merely describing his/her character's actions, not actually acting out. Sometimes playing an RPG doesn't involve playing a role at all, but playing with a role.

If this turns out well, you'll become the Scott McCloud of RPGs.

EDIT: I went through this many times.

 

[jmucchiello]

Improvisational theatre was mentioned, but you need a definition that does not include acting, because that is not the same as roleplaying games; thus, you need to make a distinction that this is a game, not merely playing a role.

I disagree. In fact, improv is more of a game than RPGs are. Actors who improv sometimes compete with one another. Try to put the other actors off-balance. Try to "win". RPGs lack that one-upsmanship. In fact, it's outright discouraged by referring to such players as problem players (or munchkins).

By your definition "How to Host a Murder" games are RPGs. But again, those games have a winner: the person who solves the mystery. RPGs have a set of winners: the players. In an RPG mystery, the players solve the mystery. Not Bob, not Jane.

RPGs are not games in the common understanding of the word. Games have winners and losers and a strict set of rules that determines which group the participants fall into. I far preferred buttercup's attempt to swing the definition toward "collective drama" (Drama = fictional narrative).

 

[alsih2o]

only "finite" games have winners, other games, none as open or infinite do not always meet that criteria

 

[alsih2o]

"There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite.
A finite game is a game that has fixed rules and boundaries, that is played for the purpose of winning and thereby ending the game.

An infinite game has no fixed rules or boundaries. In an infinite game you play with the boundaries and the purpose is to continue the game.

Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful.

Finite players try to control the game, predict everything that will happen, and set the outcome in advance. They are serious and determined about getting that outcome. They try to fix the future based on the past.

Infinite players enjoy being surprised. Continuously running into something one didn't know will ensure that the game will go on. The meaning of the past changes depending on what happens in the future."

from here: http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/infinitegames.html

 

[pensiv]

jmucchiello, your points are exactly the sort of things that I was suggesting mythusmage should explore.

I wasn't trying to define RPGs myself, just pointing mythusmage in an important direction. The word itself needs to be analyzed in order to define the term in its entirety.

What makes RPGs different from improv is important, what makes RPGs different from "How to Host a Murder" is important (though one may argue that "How to Host a Murder" is an RPG).

Like Clay, I wouldn't go so far as to say all games have winners. dictionary.com has a long list of definitions, not all of which mention winning.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=game

Either way, I wouldn't ignore the fact that the word "game" is a part of Roleplaying Game. In defining RPG, one may have to decide that what many people consider RPGs are not.

 

[herald]

[definition]A roleplaying game is a pastime where people assume the role of another person in an imaginary setting, with a set of rules that regulate what is, and is not, possible in that imaginary setting.[/definition]

But the not all settings are imaginary. There are games that are set in the real world, but with fictional counterparts.

If you remember "Murder in Small Town America", the Fox tv show took ordianry people and put htem in a role of murder investigators tracking down a serial murderer. They were role playing in the real world, the town was very real. It's just that it had actors playing the parts on NPC's and murders were indeed faked.

So, IMHO, fictionialized setting is more acurate that imaginary. Fictionalized covers both Imaginary and Realistic fiction.

 

[herald]

What makes RPGs different from improv is important, what makes RPGs different from "How to Host a Murder" is important (though one may argue that "How to Host a Murder" is an RPG).

I would state that How to Host a Murder is indeed fiction and falls under the catagory of Live Action Role Playing Game. Albeit very simplistic.