Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5472514" data-attributes="member: 18280">I wouldn't make that claim, but I would make the claim that, if you remove enough "gamist" features (in the Forge sense, via pemerton's post) that the term "game" ceases to apply in the way it is typically used in the term "role-playing game".IMHO, not all entertainments are games.  A game has a win condition (or, in the case of an rpgs, a series of subjective and/or mutable win conditions related to the scenario or session, and/or the long-term goals of the PCs), elements of player skill (i.e., the choices of players must affect the outcome), and the outcome of the win condition must not be known aforehand (which, IMHO, is also necessary for there to be elements of player skill).I'll freely grant that this is not the only possible definition of game.  It is, however, what I mean by the "game" in rpg.  And 4e does qualify.Whether/how the "meta-game constructs"/"rules-first elements" interfere with role assumption is another question, but I believe that 4e easily passes the test here as well.There are things people call "games", though, that I would not.  Snakes & Ladders springs swiftly to mind.  Give each player 2+ tokens, and allow them to determine which to move on each roll, and S&L becomes a game (as I am using the term).  With a single token, there is no element of player skill.(Many "games" designed for small children are like this -- they teach the child how to follow the rules, while making it equally likely that the child, who is presumably less skilled than his/her parents and/or older sibs, has an equal chance of winning, because the "players" contribute no meaningful decisions to the outcome.  This is useful when teaching good sportsmanship, and is far less frustrating for the child.  However, IMHO and IME, for most adults, meaningful contribution to the outcome is a mandatory feature for actual games.  Most children IME rapidly outgrow Snakes & Ladders.There is an interesting aside to be made about entertainments like Snakes & Ladders and some forms of gambling, though, such as playing slot machines.)Likewise, some things that might look on the surface as if they have no win conditions, actually do.  It is possible to both win or lose at Spin the Bottle.  A game might have a mutable win condition of "sustain this narrative thread as long as possible", where the length that the narrative thread is sustained determines the degree of success (and the satisfaction of the players).Anyway, all IMHO.  YMMV.People have made that claim.  I have defended their right to judge whether or not something is a game based on its perceived merits (rather than what is on the tin).  This may be what pemerton is referring to.RC</blockquote>

Verification