The Many Faces of Roleplaying: How ‘RPG’ Became Everything and Nothing

[The Soloist]

"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see." - Henry David Thoreau

You can look at my Warhammer all you want, but you'll only really 'see it' when it hits your face! - Famous expression coined by The Soloist.

 

[pemerton]

There is no score and no one wins.

Like backyard cricket, kick-to-kick football, friendly hands of cards, etc, etc. These are all games.

 

[KYRON45]

Like backyard cricket, kick-to-kick football, friendly hands of cards, etc, etc. These are all games.

I would say its semantics; which is the bedrock of things so it seems.
If a game you are playing has no win state, isn't it just an activity you are engaging in to pass the time?

 

[TwoSix]

Like backyard cricket, kick-to-kick football, friendly hands of cards, etc, etc. These are all games.

Hmm.

I mean, gamification is a real term. "Let's make a game of it" is a real-world phrase that has meaning.

And the implication of those terms and phrases is that something can be added to a non-game activity to turn it into something that is recognizably a game.

And that something to add, usually, would be some sort of metric by which progress and success can be measured.

So the implication of "RPGs are activities, not games" is that there is no definable metric by which "success" or "progress" can measured or evaluated.

 

[KYRON45]

Hmm.

I mean, gamification is a real term. "Let's make a game of it" is a real-world phrase that has meaning.

And the implication of those terms and phrases is that something can be added to a non-game activity to turn it into something that is recognizably a game.

And that something to add, usually, would be some sort of metric by which progress and success can be measured.

So the implication of "RPGs are activities, not games" is that there is no definable metric by which "success" or "progress" can measured or evaluated.

So long as everyone is having fun, we are all winners.

 

[pemerton]

I would say its semantics; which is the bedrock of things so it seems.
If a game you are playing has no win state, isn't it just an activity you are engaging in to pass the time?

Someone who thinks there's something at stake in insisting that RPGs are not games, but rather activities, must think the semantics matter. Otherwise why would they care? I'm engaging with that person.

I've played backyard cricket, and kick-to-kick, with no ultimate win-state. But there are rules-structured outcomes, that establish local success conditions: eg being bowled, hitting the fence for six, hitting into the neighbour's yard for six-and-out, etc. And RPGing likewise has rule-structured outcomes that establish local success conditions eg succeeding on a roll against a DC, or surviving a combat, etc.

A marginal case of success conditions, in a RPG-adjacent game, is fond in A Penny for My Thoughts <A Penny for My Thoughts - Wikipedia>: if the active player, at the appropriate juncture, chooses your offered thought over that of another player, you get a token (and the tokens structure the play sequence).

And in more mainstream RPGs, that rely on a GM/player role divide, as well as rules-structured success there is also the success of discovering the information that is hidden at the outset of play - eg successfully mapping the dungeon, or solving a mystery in CoC, etc.

The perfectly good English word for describing this sort of activity is game

.

Hmm.

I mean, gamification is a real term. "Let's make a game of it" is a real-world phrase that has meaning.

And the implication of those terms and phrases is that something can be added to a non-game activity to turn it into something that is recognizably a game.

And that something to add, usually, would be some sort of metric by which progress and success can be measured.

So the implication of "RPGs are activities, not games" is that there is no definable metric by which "success" or "progress" can measured or evaluated.

As per what I've just posted, there is a lot of success or progress in a lot of RPGing.

But not all game play requires success or progress. When my daughter was younger, she would play (what she called) "imagination games" with her friends. I did the same thing when I was in primary school. These games didn't have success conditions. But they have a degree of structure to the activity, including informal rules and principles that govern role adoption and role expression.

They're different, in that respect, from (say) passing the time just by throwing rocks at s sign or into a pond. Of course, these latter activities can become games if we start scoring etc. But being sufficient to make something a game, doesn't mean its necessary.

 

[pemerton]

So long as everyone is having fun, we are all winners.

I could say the same thing about playing touch rugby with my friends. It was nearly 30 years ago now, so my memory is pretty foggy. I have no idea of what the scores were, or who was scoring, but I do remember having fun.

 

[KYRON45]

I could say the same thing about playing touch rugby with my friends. It was nearly 30 years ago now, so my memory is pretty foggy. I have no idea of what the scores were, or who was scoring, but I do remember having fun.

My joy comes from the seriousness these conversations take on. The high scoring D&D games that I take part in are a close second.

I believe the original comment was made in a “tongue in cheek” manner. But then again none of this is ever as serious to me as it seems to be to others.

Call anything you want whatever you want.

 

[loverdrive]

Speaking of RPGs, tend to be greatly improved by explicit win conditions and scoring. Like, the same game with an explicit way to win flows like ten billion times better and there's not much reason not to have them.

 

[Deset Gled]

Speaking of RPGs, tend to be greatly improved by explicit win conditions and scoring. Like, the same game with an explicit way to win flows like ten billion times better and there's not much reason not to have them.

I generally prefer when the players have a clear goal. But conditions that are too explicit can lean into railroading. And I have seen it backfire when different players have different goals. A certain amount of internal conflict adds a lot of excitement. Too much is a problem.

IMNSHO, it's a goldilocks scenario.