3 Criteria some? RPG's fall into. :)

[pawsplay]

1. Role assumption - This is equivalent to my requirement that "At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions as if that character." The as-if requirement may or may not be significant, depending on your stance on immersion. Assuming a role rather implies it, though, as that is different than taking control of a game piece.

2. Narrative - Essentially identical to "A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events."

3. Persistence - I don't have an equivalent to this in my definition, although I agree this is generally true.

My other criteria are:

"Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game." I think this one is mildly controversial, but I really believe it's true. Yes, you can attempt to kill Woodrow Wilson, and it's up to the GM to figure out how this attempted action is resolved.

"Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules." This echoes what you posted later about cooperative play, but also specifies that an RPG cannot consist entirely of ordinary social rules for resolving disagreements. Examples of rules include such things as die rolls, the use of GM fiat, and the acceptability of various PCs.

My criteria, in order:

-A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events.
-Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules.
-At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions as if that character.
-Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.

Note that when I say "my criteria," I mean those I have selected, not that these ideas are entirely my invention, as I have borrowed heavily from others' thoughts, including a number of posters here, in settling on these criteria.

 

[pawsplay]

One of the biggest differences between RPG's and pretty much any game which came before it is the fact that everyone at the table is working together. Even the GM/DM/Referee/whatever is, at worst, supposed to be neutral. He or she is not supposed to compete with the rest of the table. In fact, should he choose to compete, he wins. Every time.

That depends on what you mean by "working together." Players of a touch football game are "working together" in the sense of following the rules, listening to the ref, and engaging in good sportsmanship. Team members are cooperating to win. But individual team members may be rivals, and the two teams are opposed. The ref's job is not to help both teams win, or to even necessarily solve problems in continuing play, ony in enforcing a neutral ground of contest.

Many RPGs have adversarial characteristics. Games of Vampire almost inevitibly involve shifting alliances, as PCs become rivals or even enemies, then unite again, and then back again.

Even in classic D&D, a LG fighter and a NE thief might have a common aim, but actively contest how it is carried out and seek to nullify the other's unacceptable actions.

 

[Asmor]

Actually, Asmor, listening to the Fear the Boot podcast, one of the caster's there (Chad) is stoked to play in a sequel game of Dread where his character is continuing on to the next story. So, your particular example of me being wrong, is, well... wrong.

You said that persistence was a built-in assumption of all RPGs. This is very clearly not the case with Dread. It is *not* built with that assumption. People are always of course free to add it in on their own, just as one is free to always play the same piece in monopoly and come up with campaign rules so that your standing from the last game affects the next.

 

[Pseudonym]

I've recently discovered Brute Squad which while following 1 and 2, seems to lack 3 and falls apart at criteria 4.

I can't wait to try it out with my group.

 

[Storminator]

I've recently discovered Brute Squad which while following 1 and 2, seems to lack 3 and falls apart at criteria 4.

I can't wait to try it out with my group.

Dim-witted heroes? Relying on mighty thews and huge weapons? Not exactly knights in shining armor?

Are you sure we're not playing this already?!

PS

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Can you give some examples of player vs player RPG's?

How about In A Wicked Age…? From the rules:

In order to make your character a recurring protagonist…you have to have her go into conflict against other characters…Accordingly, when you're naming her best interests, look at the other characters and…cast your character's best interests against them…You can cast your character's best interests against your fellow players' characters, or against the GM's characters, freely, without any distinction between the two.

I haven't actually played a game of IAWA, yet (although I've been wanting to, and did start an unfortunately aborted session), but from my reading of the rules, I think the game probably benefits from player vs. player conflicts.

 

[Hussar]

That depends on what you mean by "working together." Players of a touch football game are "working together" in the sense of following the rules, listening to the ref, and engaging in good sportsmanship. Team members are cooperating to win. But individual team members may be rivals, and the two teams are opposed. The ref's job is not to help both teams win, or to even necessarily solve problems in continuing play, ony in enforcing a neutral ground of contest.

Many RPGs have adversarial characteristics. Games of Vampire almost inevitibly involve shifting alliances, as PCs become rivals or even enemies, then unite again, and then back again.

Even in classic D&D, a LG fighter and a NE thief might have a common aim, but actively contest how it is carried out and seek to nullify the other's unacceptable actions.

Well, in traditional games, you have two sides competing. Those two sides (or more I suppose) are in direct conflict, and both sides have a vested interest in preventing the other side from making any gains.

Now, there are games where you have to cooperate in order to compete. Euro board games come to mind. Something like Settlers of Cataan for example where you absolutely have to help the other players in order to help yourself. Then again, I think that Euro-board games are sliding towards RPG's anyway.

Now, in something like Vampire, while the characters within the game world are trying to be the best, the players have a vested interest in not ganking each other. Killing your buddy and taking his stuff is generally a very good option in that you will make huge gains immediately, however, the game assumes that you won't take that option in order to continue play.

But, as I said when I brought up co-operative play, that was a tentative criteria. I'm not terribly wedded to the idea and it wouldn't bother me too much to take it back off the list.