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

[sinecure]

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?

Win the game. Best done through cooperative play and having a lot of fun along the way. Like a road trip. Getting there is the purpose for leaving, but how you go matters just as much. Reward points for skillful play, the playing of the role (Class) to the best of one's ability.

EDIT: IOW, if a person loves playing mystery solving RPGs, but after years of play they can't detect their way out of a paper bag, then they either aren't trying hard enough or they aren't playing the game in the role of detective.

 

[xechnao]

Win the game. Best done through cooperative play and having a lot of fun along the way. Like a road trip. Getting there is the purpose for leaving, but how you go matters just as much. Reward points for skillful play, the playing of the role (Class) to the best of one's ability.

IMO, rewards should be realizing or rather living the social realities that the game can provide. And I am not talking about the meta-game of hanging around with your buddies but rather of what may happen in-game.

This is why I do not believe that trying to follow some hard coded class or career role is what tabletops should be about. Leave this to video games, they can do it better: in strategy and rp video games if you do not play on your strengths you are going to lose the challenge for example. Tabletops, IMO, should rather be about living through permanent life goals such as seeking love, having to face your enemies and staff like that. Tabletops, IMO should be influenced more by "the sims" and less by "WoW".

 

[sinecure]

IMO, rewards should be realizing or rather living the social realities that the game can provide. And I am not talking about the meta-game of hanging around with your buddies but rather of what may happen in-game.

The social realities in game are just a consequence of the system. Rewarding a player for "living" them isn't a game. There's no skill involved and no way to objectively measure success in stuff like that.

This is why I do not believe that trying to follow some hard coded class or career role is what tabletops should be about. Leave this to video games, they can do it better: in strategy and rp video games if you do not play on your strengths you are going to lose the challenge for example. Tabletops, IMO, should rather be about living through permanent life goals such as seeking love, having to face your enemies and staff like that. Tabletops, IMO should be influenced more by "the sims" and less by "WoW".

Videogames are fun and operate almost exactly like tabletop games, but they simply don't have the breadth of opportunity to interact within them as tabletop does. They aren't as realistic, as challenging strategically, or engaging of the imagination either IMO.

If I may ask, how many tabletop RPGs have you played? Almost all of them are designed towards challenging the player to play well, not enjoy living in the simulation (though that's possible, if you want that). Anyways, winning is what roleplaying is all about.

 

[xechnao]

The social realities in game are just a consequence of the system. Rewarding a player for "living" them isn't a game. There's no skill involved and no way to objectively measure success in stuff like that.

In fact, this is why I may consider tabletop roleplaying games more of an experience and less of a game.

Anyways, winning is what roleplaying is all about.

Perhaps for you. As I try to argue with you there are different approaches too. In fact it could not be about the social realities in game and winning at the same time -at least in a clear objective and measurable manner. These two are not compatible because social realities do not work this way.

 

[RFisher]

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?

More & more I think Traveller got it right in not having “leveling up” or a similar mechanical reward system.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

A game, traditionally, is an endeavor of unknown conclusion but of known possible outcomes. This means that any game has a clear goal. In their most simple implementation you can either achieve the goal or fail. Win or lose. This definition about games is even valid for team based games where each member has to achieve on what goals its team role dictates. 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

The premise here is a bit flawed. It assumes that there is no applicable alternative definition of "game". Only SOME defintions of "game" indicate any kind of competition or specific goal to be achieved. The first and simplest definiton of "game" seems to be that it is a diversion, entertainment - fun.

So to actually ask if tabletop RPG's are really a game or even whether it is a "traditional" game implies that a mere fun, interactive experience is not also something that falls under the definition of "game".

Even so, RPG's CAN be played with definite goals or even in a competitive manner. This is NOT what makes them a game. It is only what makes it a competitive game. Personally, I think playing an RPG in a competitive manner is really contrary to the reason to play an RPG in the first place. I can't deny that some people enjoy it that way - I just don't know why.

 

[sinecure]

In fact, this is why I may consider tabletop roleplaying games more of an experience and less of a game.

I was saying social realities are not what roleplaying games are about. That just happens by playing inside a simulation like in any simulation game. It's about getting the most points by playing the role well.

Perhaps for you. As I try to argue with you there are different approaches too. In fact it could not be about the social realities in game and winning at the same time -at least in a clear objective and measurable manner. These two are not compatible because social realities do not work this way.

Historically RPGs aren't about these "social realities", that's why they are games and not just futzing around thinking we're all cool in black trenchcoats. Players get points and win the game because they roleplayed well, not because they merely showed up for these social realities. That's not a game.

 

[xechnao]

I was saying social realities are not what roleplaying games are about. That just happens by playing inside a simulation like in any simulation game. It's about getting the most points by playing the role well.

Historically RPGs aren't about these "social realities", that's why they are games and not just futzing around thinking we're all cool in black trenchcoats. Players get points and win the game because they roleplayed well, not because they merely showed up for these social realities. That's not a game.

Well this is valid for you. I personally disagree that tabletop rpgs are, at least for me, what you want them to be. If I want this I would rather play a video game.