Are They?

[Perambulator]

Games that is. From what I Ican see, a game is supposed to be simple; limited, constrained. That does not describe the typical RPG. RPGs are typically complex, limitless. An RPG is better treated as a guide to playing a character in an imaginary world, with mechanics determining how capable the character is and on well he performs in a task.

So I would rather call them role playing guides and treat them as such.

 

[Minion X]

It's still a game played by people in the mind's eye. A guide sounds more like a set of instructions, like how to assume and play out a fake identity in real life.

 

[aco175]

I do not think that games need to be simple, limited or constrained. I kind of view games as something of leisure one does to break from life.

 

[Autumnal]

People were philosophizing about games and doing game theory math in the 1930s, and “infinite game“ - one without any fixed or required termination - has been a well-known concept in game design For almost a century. Same for other constraints.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I've been gaming since 1979, and I would not describe RPGs as limitless. Far from it.

Complex is more iffy. Most RPGs I've played are less complex than bridge or Advanced Squad Leader.

So simple, limited, constrained could fit a lot of my gaming experience. Certainly I've had my share of players who needed to be constrained, if not outright restrained.

 

[John Dallman]

From what I can see, a game is supposed to be simple; limited, constrained.

That is not an intrinsic requirement of a game. It frequently makes them easier to design, play and analyse, but that's not a limitation of the concept of a game.

That does not describe the typical RPG. RPGs are typically complex, limitless.

RPGs have different kinds of constraints from card or board games. They are not intrinsically limited in the themes or forms of their fictions, but there are significant limitations in what you can get people to participate in or enjoy, if they're expecting a normal kind of RPG.