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

[Umbran]

Lets place our context on what a tabletop rpg is about -how it is supposed to work in contrast with other activities officially acclaimed as games.

I'm still not sure of the purpose of the question, the thing that makes this something other than a discussion of semantics for the sake of semantics. Be that as it may...

Your statement above has a very simple flaw - "supposed to work", and "officially acclaimed" depend on the existence of some authority that defines such things. This authority does not exist.

Take, for example, the game of poker - the card game with perhaps the largest known number of variants. At a particular casino table, it is "supposed to work" a very particular way. However, how the game works in my living room is gong to be a rather different beast, and I'm not "wrong" to play it differently than at the casino table.

I submit that outside of mathematical "game theory", statements that a thing is a game have nothing to do with being "officially a game", and have everything to do with communicating. I think the phrase was first applied to D&D for sake of marketing - having only three words that get across a vague idea of what's going on is powerful stuff in sales.

Is it complete, unambiguous, and definitive? Perhaps not. But then, neither is the term "tomato sauce".

I'll deal with some other bits after I've gone and done my dishes -work before play, and all that

 

[Greg K]

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.

Well in some non-western socieites, games are not about win-lose. They are about skill building or group building and having fun playing. Heck, we even see similar things here with no-score t-ball for younger kids.

 

[JackSmithIV]

What a game "is" is completely subjective. Game can be chess, or checkers, or board games, or sports, and fit conventional definitions... or not. It does not necessarily include a competitor, because there are games you can play alone (solitaire, etc). Also, anything can be a game to someone, such as a small child who sits and invents a game with no rules around an inane task we might not think as "entertainment" or "competition". But to him, that's a game. His game. And to some people, World of Warcraft, which is clearly a game by definition, is much more of a job.

If you want your Dungeons & Dragons to be called an "interactive experience", that's fine. D&D is indeed an interactive experience by nature, and I believe that D&D is so much more than "just a game". But a "game" it is.

This thread kind of reminds me of when that phone, the helio came out and had a campaign whose slogan was something like "Don't call it a phone." But it is a phone. I don't care if your phone has GPS, email, and a coffee maker built in... if it's primary function is to make calls, I'm gonna be refering to it as my phone.

And as long as D&D continues to be my way of getting together with my friends, rolling dice, fighting bad guys, exploring the most fantastic worlds imaginable, and having a great time, you're gonna hear me calling it a game.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

And as long as D&D continues to be my way of getting together with my friends, rolling dice, fighting bad guys, exploring the most fantastic worlds imaginable, and having a great time, you're gonna hear me calling it a game.

Yup, same here. I think too, using the term game. Emphasizes what I think should be the most paramount aspect of RPGs, having fun. Since when we hear playing a game, we think having fun.

Semi on-topic, I find it odd too when video gamers are annoyed when people call consoles, "toys". Since well it is a toy, it is a device for having fun.

 

[Umbran]

I would also like to see your insight on the incompatibility thesis among game serving "gamism" and simulationism (adventuring) serving "gamism". I use the term "gamism" since I can not say if we finally agree or disagree to consider it appropriate for our context.

We will work with the terms, until such time as we identify that we are talking past each other

First off, the base system is not just gamism and simulationism. You left out narrativism. And I think that is important. "Adventuring" is not clearly simulation - it is as easily seen as at least as much narrative as simulation...

We can, however, set the details of GNS theory aside - it is only one framework after all - and step back to look at a larger picture. The system for an RPG must be finite for it to be usable. It must, in fact, be extremely finite - encompassed in just a few books. Compared to the breadth of published fiction, the system is tiny. Compared to all of human imagination, the system is minuscule.

So, I'll submit that any reasonably usable game can't do everything we might want well. Maybe a system serves a broad gamist approach, but fails to simulate or help with narrative (like poker). Or maybe it games and simulates well in combat, but does neither well in social scenes, and so on. Or maybe it games, simulates, and narrates well in one corner of the fantasy genre, but really won't extend to other genres.

 

[Ourph]

So golf isn't a game?

What are you talking about? I lose at golf all the time.

 

[Campbell]

So golf isn't a game?

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

 

[Woas]

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

So that's why all Scotsmen are so angry! Ooooohhhh.

 

[pawsplay]

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?

Yes, they are games. If I am understanding your post correctly, I would answer in this way. In a traditional RPG, you have a field, basically the time and place the world is set in and some parameters concerning what you are going to game about. Then you proceed through the game, with two overall goals in mind: decision, and narration. Decision means the player makes a decision about the desired outcome. Narration means resolving a challenge or question and then describing it in story terms.

Thus, "role-playing game" is exactly what it sounds like, it is a game in which you play a role. The meta-goal is an exciting experience that mimics our responses to real life. The process is immersion.

 

[xechnao]

We will work with the terms, until such time as we identify that we are talking past each other

First off, the base system is not just gamism and simulationism. You left out narrativism. And I think that is important. "Adventuring" is not clearly simulation - it is as easily seen as at least as much narrative as simulation...

We can, however, set the details of GNS theory aside - it is only one framework after all - and step back to look at a larger picture. The system for an RPG must be finite for it to be usable. It must, in fact, be extremely finite - encompassed in just a few books. Compared to the breadth of published fiction, the system is tiny. Compared to all of human imagination, the system is minuscule.

So, I'll submit that any reasonably usable game can't do everything we might want well. Maybe a system serves a broad gamist approach, but fails to simulate or help with narrative (like poker). Or maybe it games and simulates well in combat, but does neither well in social scenes, and so on. Or maybe it games, simulates, and narrates well in one corner of the fantasy genre, but really won't extend to other genres.

Yes, they are games. If I am understanding your post correctly, I would answer in this way. In a traditional RPG, you have a field, basically the time and place the world is set in and some parameters concerning what you are going to game about. Then you proceed through the game, with two overall goals in mind: decision, and narration. Decision means the player makes a decision about the desired outcome. Narration means resolving a challenge or question and then describing it in story terms.

Thus, "role-playing game" is exactly what it sounds like, it is a game in which you play a role. The meta-goal is an exciting experience that mimics our responses to real life. The process is immersion.

I had written a thorough response but...something happened and I lost it.
Let me try to summarize.

I can accept "decision" as a valid goal. A "decision" is something we understand as the input in cases where such input is a matter of how we value their outcome. If the way we value the outcome is indifferent to such input then there is no "decision". So our goal is to create a solid ground where we can value its outcomes based on our input to it. But such a solid ground can be nothing else but socializing on some common ground, be it our neighborhood or our roleplaying game. So, our roleplaying game mechanically must be nothing else but some common ground in perpetuity. You spoke about a field of a "world" so this can very well be it, I guess.

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"? Right now I am thinking about these contests where you have judges valuing performance by various parameters such as technique, synthesis and overall form. But are roleplaying games something such as this? I think not. So how do we understand "narration" as a goal? Well, we can try to see this in the most simple way possible. One either manages to narrate or he does not. Going even further this could be: one either expresses himself or he does not. But isn't this a necessary and integral condition so that the "decision" game analyzed in the previous paragraph takes place? If so we could eventually say that narration is just a tool that reflects decision. At this point can we say that narration is an actual goal of the game? I would not say so.

In the end, the only important mechanical thing seems to be the creation of an understandable and acceptable common world with no end in sight other than our meaningful input. This means that we need to be able to value such input -or, that such input can be valued- by the known value of things in our real life. This means that we need to be able to reflect the various possibilities of inputs with the value of things in our real life. Hence the fundamental importance of simulationism I was talking about.