tabletop rpgs-are they really games? or rather a "fun" interactive experience

[Umbran]

What about "narration"? How can we understand "narration" as a goal? Do we need to establish a set of guidelines or rules so we can value "narration"?

If we are talking in terms of GNS theory, no. In that theory, the game, the simulation, and the narration are each separate beasts - you can have one without the others. In good RPG system design, they are all present to some degree, and probably work in concert to give an overall experience, but the narration and simulation are not subsets of the game aspect.

It seems to me that you're trying to wedge everything involved in RPGs into "game". But that is not necessary. Soccer is a game, right? Well, one aspect of playing soccer is improvement in physical fitness. But, that plays no part in the game, per se. One is not scored on heart rate and blood pressure. Similarly, in many social games, the game itself is an excuse for other activity - the game is a framework for social interaction, and who wins is secondary to the fun of interacting with other people. When playing "Apples to Apples" the winner is not determined by number of laughs, but really, that's why you're playing.

The point being - not everything you do when playing a game is part of "game". And the "game" part of the activity need not even be the most important thing - but you are still playing a game.

I feel I should also note - there's a long history of tournament D&D play, which was a cornerstone of the RPGA for many years. I find it difficult to accept that a thing that was played in tournaments for decades isn't considered a game.

 

[xechnao]

It seems to me that you're trying to wedge everything involved in RPGs into "game". But that is not necessary.

I see your point. But then from a game's design and a game designer's point of view it is helpful to think in such a way or at least have a very clear image of how things may work but most importantly how and why things may-or could- not work. Because as you said imagination is bigger than any system. But a system is necessary as a necessary contract that establishes the guidelines everyone can see and accept. So even if imagination can in theory make anything work, it is desirable that there are not any important things not covered by the system and almost imperative that there are no things that offend or rather confuse and perplex someone's imagination by their artificial limits because they can screw up with the ability to value the things previously discussed -hence again the importance of simulationsim done right. So the motto here would be: better no rules than bad rules. But to be able to judge this way the rules of your game you need a wedge like approach that you are talking about (IMO).

 

[Umbran]

I see your point. But then from a game's design and a game designer's point of view it is helpful to think in such a way or at least have a very clear image of how things may work but most importantly how and why things may-or could- not work.

(Let me clarify. I am trying to be consistent with language in this thread, where our more casual use cold lead to misunderstanding - when I say "game", I'm talking about the gamist bits. When I say "system", I'm talking about the game, plus the narrative and simulationist bits.)

To speak to your point - yes, but that does not imply that narration or simulation become game goals. As in, your success in the game need not depend on some measurement of success in narrative or simulation.

The people writing the game part of things do certainly need to keep in mind the fact that they are working in a larger context of the whole RPG. And maybe some of their game mechanics directly serve narrative or simulation. But you can have a good system without direct service. Indirect, but flowing smoothly from one to the other, with similarity of themes, is sufficient.

That being in my experience, at any rate. D&D is a good example - it has always been a decent system, but the game mechanics have never done much to directly serve narrative needs. That has never stopped me from doing good narrative work with D&D, in any edition.

 

[pawsplay]

What about "narration"? How can we understand "narration" as a goal? Do we need to establish a set of guidelines or rules so we can value "narration"?

The value of narration is to narrate. Narration and decision together produce a product: story. An RPG is a game that produces a story. Note that I am not saying it produces a novel, play, or other poetic work.

 

[The Shaman]

No. Golf is not a game. Golf is a soul crushing, time wasting activity that can only lead to misery.

Give him the XP, Tolo. Give him that XP. Give him all the XP.

 

[RFisher]

I don’t really consider role-playing games to be games, but—as others have said—that is just about my own way of using the language in my head.

What really matters to me is considering the differences between role-playing games and other activities. What are the strengths and weaknesses of role-playing games. How should I approach role-playing games—differently than I approach other activities, even if superficially similar—in order to get the most out of them?

 

[xechnao]

What really matters to me is considering the differences between role-playing games and other activities. What are the strengths and weaknesses of role-playing games. How should I approach role-playing games—differently than I approach other activities, even if superficially similar—in order to get the most out of them?

haha this! bravo RFisher . In essence, this is the very scope I had in mind behind the thread.

 

[RFisher]

haha this! bravo RFisher . In essence, this is the very scope I had in mind behind the thread.

Then, I would say that for me some of the important elements of RPGs are...

• Human judge more than written rules
• Coöperative
• Open-ended

 

[sinecure]

A game, traditionally, is an endeavor of unknown conclusion but of known possible outcomes.

Player knowledge is almost universally limited knowledge in order to place players within their roles. GMs could potentially see all possible outcomes, the number is vast as in Chess. Not to mention DMs are meant to run the game not play it.

This means that any game has a clear goal.

Yes, like in Pinball the goal is to gain as many points as possible. However, most RPGs do have a top level too.

In their most simple implementation you can either achieve the goal or fail. Win or lose.

True, if the GM doesn't cheat.

This definition about games is even valid for team based games where each member has to achieve on what goals its team role dictates.

Player group determined goals cannot really be rewarded by an RPG system without reverting to metagaming (il-legitimizing the role), but these goals may be able to be completed within one. The advantages gained within the game by completing the goal are usually the impetus for setting it anyways and could be viewed as rewards by the players.

And it seems that a game and a race in theory are the same thing. Where they differ is the fact that in a race it is more clear the progress of the endeavor and its most probable outcome while been undertaken.

Rewarded point totals are a clear measure of progress. However, the probable outcome is always in doubt. Does the Player reach highest level or must they start over?

I guess it could be seen as a race where the runners are in far better shape by helping each other to win making the competition less of an aspect than the completion of the race - highest level.

But what about tabletop rpgs? Can we say that they have clear game goals? Their nature is one of a team and each member assumes a role but does this role have the clear goals as in a team based game?

Okay,
Yes,
No - Players operate jointly towards independently rewarded goals.

If so why the need of adventure? Because no reflection of the need of exploration and discovery in one's team role may very well create incompatibility problematics here. So the question since it seems rather more appropriate if clear game goals are established to be done with adventuring.

To gain points,
I'm not understanding the rest of this paragraph, but I'm guessing it's the same anwer as above, to gain points.

In case you are not convinced about potential incompatibility problems think of how team adventuring works in principle. It is clear that one needs a way to play with an ever evolving dynamic ground that offers the needed dimension for such an endeavor of exploration to be played. Such a way is the simulationism that many tabletop roleplaying games offer. And it becomes clear that any gaming goals one's team role has, they will influence or weight on the dimension of exploration because even in this dimension the gameplay is team based. So follow one's clear team role or try to reflect on ways to explore and make new discoveries?

Oofda. Group goals and individual "team roles" are chosen by the group and not necessary or required by the game. This is different than the class each player is playing, but class roles do help in synchronizing teams, if they do determine "team roles". Exploring classes, or in other words roles players are attempting to gain points for, is done while playing. There is no rehearsal step. Fictional roleplaying is rehearsal, though these games don't relate much to real life.

Teambuilding typically arises now from habit in the hobby, but it is also arises so each player may reach the highest level. This "success through alliance" strategy is probably the cardinal trait of most RPGs.

I tend to choose the second answer of the last question. I believe traditional rpgs are more interactive experiences than traditional games. So the question in the title. What do you think?

I disagree. I think traditional RPGs are definitively games and very good ones at that.

 

[xechnao]

Sinecure, what is the essence of tabletop rpgs to you? Rise in levels or live through a life like adventure with some people like you?