Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4905475" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, and this is why I have a problem with your definition.  Your definition excludes something like Spirit of the Century as a role playing game, but does not exclude Magic the Gathering.  Wouldn't a more useful definition be one which actually reflects reality?Hang on a tick.  I have drawn no such line at all.  I am saying that both traditional role playing games where there is little or no shared-world aspect and games in which players have greater degrees of editiorial control are both role playing games.I am saying that the umbrella of role playing game should be more inclusive, not less. Again, going back to the graphic I posted a ways back, Magic the Gathering would not be a Role Playing Game because it is not focussed on collaborative play.  It's competitive.  It also fails my criteria in that play is not assumed to carry on between sessions.  It fails in a third way in that there are win conditions as a goal of the game.To me, a role playing game has none of those conditions.  Thus, MtG and Hungry, Hungry Hippos both fail to be a role playing game, while Spirit of the Century or Sufficiently Advanced (in which players have a MUCH greater degree of editorial control over the game) are both role playing games.Different from traditional rpg's?  Oh sure.  But, I'm certainly not claiming that traditional rpg's are not role playing games.</blockquote>