Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9202442" data-attributes="member: 6795602">One interesting thing [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] brought up is that most games, if not all, can be played in a completely imaginative space without the need for any kind of physical tokens.&nbsp; Though I think more accurately this would be called an abstract space instead of imaginative space - but there’s some question for me as to whether an abstract game space and an imaginative game space or the same thing.I think maybe the true difference between an RPG and a game like chess isn’t that one is imagined or not (chess can be fully imagined/abstract as well). I think the true difference lies in what is being imagined.&nbsp; An RPG is about an imagined fictional world and controlling an imagined character in that fictional world.&nbsp; Obviously if we are playing with other people we all need to stay on the same page about the happenings in that imagined world - which is where the notion of shared imagination comes from. However, similar to chess which is usually played on a physical or digital board but can be imagined, RPG’s can also be played with physical or digital tokens to represent the world and characters in it.&nbsp; This is why computer rpg’s are still rpg’s.So I think I’m at the point that I disagree with the notion that RPGs core is a shared imaginative space. The core of an RPG is a game about a fictional world where players control a fictional character where the players choices for the character drive the gameplay.And even this is a bit broad because it would include games like tomb raider or call of duty - but in some sense those kinds of games might should technically be classified as RPGs - even if they differ greatly from what traditionally gets thought of as RPGs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9202442, member: 6795602"] One interesting thing [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] brought up is that most games, if not all, can be played in a completely imaginative space without the need for any kind of physical tokens. Though I think more accurately this would be called an abstract space instead of imaginative space - but there’s some question for me as to whether an abstract game space and an imaginative game space or the same thing. I think maybe the true difference between an RPG and a game like chess isn’t that one is imagined or not (chess can be fully imagined/abstract as well). I think the true difference lies in what is being imagined. An RPG is about an imagined fictional world and controlling an imagined character in that fictional world. Obviously if we are playing with other people we all need to stay on the same page about the happenings in that imagined world - which is where the notion of shared imagination comes from. However, similar to chess which is usually played on a physical or digital board but can be imagined, RPG’s can also be played with physical or digital tokens to represent the world and characters in it. This is why computer rpg’s are still rpg’s. So I think I’m at the point that I disagree with the notion that RPGs core is a shared imaginative space. The core of an RPG is a game about a fictional world where players control a fictional character where the players choices for the character drive the gameplay. And even this is a bit broad because it would include games like tomb raider or call of duty - but in some sense those kinds of games might should technically be classified as RPGs - even if they differ greatly from what traditionally gets thought of as RPGs. [/QUOTE]

Verification