[2nd Draft] URPGs Essay One

[mythusmage]

Understanding Roleplaying Games Essay One

What is a roleplaying game?

In this essay I will present a definition of what a roleplaying game (an RPG) is. This is so we'll have a solid foundation upon which the rest of the essays can stand. Now, there are other definitions out there, but they usually address points that are really not relevant to the subject, or they either say too much or not enough.

What is a roleplaying game? Let's give it a shot.

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

You'll note that this says nothing about what is or is not possible. It says nothing about the sort of roles that can be assumed, or the type of setting an RPG is set in. All that is the province of the individual RPG. We are dealing here with RPGs as a whole. Thus, while the definition needs to be comprehensive, we cannot get into too much detail. It should also be noted that one can be comprehensive, and still be concise.

Now does the setting have to be imaginary? Couldn't it be based on the real world?

The real world has a certain immediacy to it no description could ever have. Besides, what's being presented in an RPG is a world as seen through the players' eyes, as such even one based on the real world must take on many of the aspects of a created world. In a sense, it becomes a created world. From the very beginning a setting based in the real world would be an imaginary one.

This goes back to human capabilities. We cannot know everything about the real world, we don't have that ability. We can know a little and extrapolate from there. All the rest is guess work. Which means a product of our imaginations. This means that while a setting can be based on the real world, it must perforce be an imaginary world.

In addition, there are the players' actions, which will, indeed must, change even the most faithful models of the real world in ways most unrealistic. In other words, no matter how faithful the recreation is, when the first adventure is held it becomes unfaithful to the original. Of course, all this is getting into a future essay, so I'll leave it at that.

The role a person assays is another matter. Most anything could become a role. A body part, or a nation-state. So long as the rules allow for it. For this reason I do not limit the definition of "role" in any way. In an RPG the players take on the part of another, who might be human, or may not. A player could play take on an idealized version of himself, orhimself as he might be in the setting. But, this role would stop being anything like a faithful representation as soon as the first session, since this alternate would be going through experiences he is not.

All in all, the role, the part a player takes on in an RPG depends on what the specific RPG allows, and the player's desires.

Yes, in case you were wondering, this definition does allow one to include some things a few may not want to include under the umbrella of roleplaying games. Live action roleplay (LARP) for instance, or the various _Host A Murder_ games. In so far as the activity in question can be shown to fall under the definition, it qualifies as an RPG.

(I was going to include improvisational theater here, but after giving it some thought I came to the realization that improv really doesn't qualify. It does have its own set of rules, but improv is more an exercise where a basic situation is established and then the actors improvise what happens. At no time are they called upon to perform actions that require a set of rules to determine if they succeed or not. For that reason improv is not, strictly speaking , an RPG.)

In other words, RPGs need not be limited to face to face games. If the definition fits (A roleplaying game is a pastime where the players assume roles in an imaginary setting, with a set of rules that regulate what is, and is not, possible in that imaginary setting.), then the activity is a roleplaying game. Even when it is traditionally thought of in different terms.

With all that out of the way, we can now proceed to why people play RPGs.

 

[mythusmage]

This is a Bump.

This is only a bump.

Had this been a real posting you would've found something interesting to read.

 

[mythusmage]

People Are Reading...

...but nobody's posting. What do I have to do, declare that Col. Pladoh's dead, again?

(Did you ever stop to think that maybe if we stopped killing Gary the price of resurrection insurance would go down?)

Which is all my longwinded way of saying, BUMP!

(To paraphrase a California election spot, "Could I get a sticky on this?!")

 

[mythusmage]

All this bumping is getting to be a grind.

 

[Mark]

(I was going to include improvisational theater here, but after giving it some thought I came to the realization that improv really doesn't qualify. It does have its own set of rules, but improv is more an exercise where a basic situation is established and then the actors improvise what happens. At no time are they called upon to perform actions that require a set of rules to determine if they succeed or not. For that reason improv is not, strictly speaking , an RPG.)

You may wish to add the caveat that Improv games differ in that beyond the intial situation, they rarely involve a facilitator in an ongoing influence over the players. Otherwise, I'd have to disagree on their exclusion. Improv players are largely self-determinators in their version of RPGing.

 

[mythusmage]

Do RPGs require a facilitator, a Game Master? I'm not sure they do. As currently done, yes, but can an RPG be made that does not? It would be interesting to find out.

In the case of improv you can think of each scenario as being something like an encounter. An extended encounter that can get bloody confusing at times. But, unlike an RPG encounter what conflict does occur is usually verbal in nature, implied through expression and gesture, or limited by some strict conventions. So you could have a wrestling scene, but real harm is frowned upon and the "fighting" is exaggerated for dramatic/comedic effect. Besides which, the outcome of any conflict is determined by dramatic necessity (which has its own set of rules), not by a set of mechanics.

This all being my long-winded way of saying, no, you really can't include improvisational theater under the aegis of roleplaying game.

 

[Mark]

Do RPGs require a facilitator, a Game Master? I'm not sure they do. As currently done, yes, but can an RPG be made that does not? It would be interesting to find out.

Perhaps...

In the case of improv you can think of each scenario as being something like an encounter. An extended encounter that can get bloody confusing at times.

Not when ideally realized. In fact, in one form called the Harold (which is one of several "long form" improvosational techniques) they attempt to reach patrticular goals with scenes. They also attempt to build from one scene to the next to achieve a cohesive story (and possibly predetermined goals) with the series of scenes, even though the details of those scenes and the story are not realized until the Improv is complete. Sounds very much like an RPG to me.

But, unlike an RPG encounter what conflict does occur is usually verbal in nature, implied through expression and gesture, or limited by some strict conventions.

Unlike a table top RPG...? Wha...? I think you'd better read what you wrote hear and give me a clue what I am missing.

So you could have a wrestling scene, but real harm is frowned upon and the "fighting" is exaggerated for dramatic/comedic effect.

Again, is real harm the goal of RPGs? I'm missing something again. Nonetheless, what you say above is also a function of RPGs, I believe.

Besides which, the outcome of any conflict is determined by dramatic necessity (which has its own set of rules), not by a set of mechanics.

Rules are mechanics. Are diceless RPGs not RPGs? As I undertstand them, they resolve conflict fairly closely to the same way as what you have just describe. It should also be mentioned that ultimately the mechanics of any RPG are merely a guideline to assist the facilitator in story telling. Bottom line is that the facilitator is the arbitor of of the outcome, not the mechanics. So, too, are the self-determinating members of an Improv the ultimate purveyor of the completed scene and free to break the "rules" if it furthers the story.

This all being my long-winded way of saying, no, you really can't include improvisational theater under the aegis of roleplaying game.

You seem to have decided to exclude Improv (for whatever reason) and look to justify it retrospectively. I'd suggest you define RPGs, if that is truly the goal, then examine Improv and exclude or include it based on your description. Either way you will certainly find some who disagree with your definaition and either include or disclude Improv for whatever reasons or whims they feel are valid in their own definition.

I think that your understanding of Improv leaves you in a poor position to determine whether it should be included or not. I'd leave the field completely out of your essay, if I were you, unless you plan to research the subject in earnest.

 

[mythusmage]

I'm going to have to think about what you said. Which could take awhile. Patience I pray.

 

[bret]

I would suggest you add a paragraph specifically indicating common settings. Let the reader know that anything goes for setting.

RPG settings can use any type of settings. Some settings include fantastical powers or creatures, while others try for some historical versimitude. Think of any setting you've seen in a movie or read in a book, that could be used in an RPG. Common settings would include pseudo-medieval swords and sorcery, space opera, near-future science fiction, Anime, espionage, golden age (Doc Savage), or the wild west. Less traditional settings could involve cybernetic rabbits fighting the farmer in a space habitat (weird version of Watership Down), ancient people creating wonderous technilogical items using mage (sometimes called Mana Punk or Steam Punk), a cross-dimentional university for all types of characters, a battle to define reality, or ancient horrors taking over the world via advertising and marketting campaigns.

---

I think it is a good idea to get across the idea that just because someone doesn't like one type of RPG, that doesn't mean there isn't a different type that they may like.

Typical settings include medieval or pseudo-medieval, pseudo medieval with the addition of magical

 

[mythusmage]

To quote myself:

...or the type of setting an RPG is set in.

Some prose you don't skim.