Towards a Workable RPG Theory

[mythusmage]

A world isn't neccessary. At best, a setting of some kind is. I know you claim that "world" in this case could mean something as simple as a totally isolated dungeon, but why beat around the bush when what you want is a simple definition anyway? Just say "setting", or even better, "environment".

And you do have to clarify "system". As it is, that part of the definition you put forth is completely useless. To parrot you for a moment, "What does the system do?" Unless you describe this, your definition is lacking.

A roleplaying game is an activity in which the player assumes the role of a character in a fictional environment with a system that describes how to facilitate and resolve conflicts within that environment.

an activity- categorical part of the definition
fictional environment- better wording than "imaginary world"
to facilitate and resolve conflicts within that environment- removes "imaginary world", clarifies what the system does (facilitates and resolves conflicts)

For my purposes 'setting' or 'environment' is too limiting. I prefer 'world' because it doesn't constrain matters as much as your alternatives do. A setting or environment can be part of a world, but I don't see how they could substitute for a world.

So why keep emphasizing 'world'? Because a world is where you live. You can have adventures in a setting or environment, but you live in a world. You can have adventures as part of your life, but adventure as the whole of your life gets tedious after awhile.

And why system as describing how the world works? Because a world is more than action and conflict. A character lives somewhere. He can get involved in action and conflict, but that is not the whole of what he can do. He could engage in trade or research. He could enter politics or diplomacy. He could travel to strange and exotic lands. He is not limited to action and conflict.

Part of describing how the world works includes how action and conflict are handled, so when I say that an RPG includes "...a sytem describing how the world works." it incorporates action and conflict.

Now why do I call it a pastime? Because it is. It is an activity, but it is also a pastime. Something you do to pass the time. An RPG as I've defined it is an entertainment. You participate because you enjoy it, because you think it's a good way to pass the time. Not all activities are pastimes, but all pastimes are activities.

BTW, you almost say the same thing I do, but you use more words to say it. Get yourself a good print dictionary and read a few definitions. Note how terse the definitions are. I am trying to be as succint as I can. If I could come up with wording that is even more succinct, and still say says what needs to be said, I would use it. People for the most part are not interested in a long explanation, they want the essentials in a nutshell; when such an explanation is possible. I contend that where RPGs are concerned such is indeed possible.

(I'll be composing a post offline going into detail. That post will start a new thread. This thread is now declared open. Just be sure to keep it to matters relevant (even if tenuously) to RPGs. )

 

[Jackelope King]

For my purposes 'setting' or 'environment' is too limiting. I prefer 'world' because it doesn't constrain matters as much as your alternatives do. A setting or environment can be part of a world, but I don't see how they could substitute for a world.

So why keep emphasizing 'world'? Because a world is where you live. You can have adventures in a setting or environment, but you live in a world. You can have adventures as part of your life, but adventure as the whole of your life gets tedious after awhile.

Actually, you live in an environment. You said you wanted something along the lines of a scientific theory, and that is the language I am using. A world is not necessary for a roleplaying game, as you yourself have said. All that is necessary is an environment. A world can indeed enhance the experience, but it is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination.

And why system as describing how the world works? Because a world is more than action and conflict. A character lives somewhere. He can get involved in action and conflict, but that is not the whole of what he can do. He could engage in trade or research. He could enter politics or diplomacy. He could travel to strange and exotic lands. He is not limited to action and conflict.

Part of describing how the world works includes how action and conflict are handled, so when I say that an RPG includes "...a sytem describing how the world works." it incorporates action and conflict.

But it does not include facilitating and resolving conflict explicitly. It leaves the idea of system vague as you fail to identify the mechanism behind the activity. Every good scientific theory either identifies the mechanism or admits that the mechanism is not known. We know the mechanism which is necessary for a game to be an RPG: a system for facilitating and resolving conflict. Describing the natural and social laws of a game is a wonderful addition, but it is not necessary for a game to be considered a roleplaying game. Describing how travel works, or how politics work, or how research works, is not necessary for all games. All that is necessary for a system is for a conflict to be made manifest and for a method to exist to resolve that conflict. Anything else can simply be narrated over.

More generally, all of what you describe can be called either facilitating conflict (rules for travel, for example, carrying players from one conflict to the next) or resolving conflict (rules for politics to resolve who becomes the next mayor).

Now why do I call it a pastime? Because it is. It is an activity, but it is also a pastime. Something you do to pass the time. An RPG as I've defined it is an entertainment. You participate because you enjoy it, because you think it's a good way to pass the time. Not all activities are pastimes, but all pastimes are activities.

That's not a problem. I included activity because you didn't include pastime in your definition at all. Replacing activity with pastime is not a problem.

 

[jester47]

Reposted from Mythusmage's forums

role-playing, n. 4. role-playing game, a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular fantasy setting overseen by a referee; (also, in later use) a computer game of this kind.

A roleplaying game is [a game] where the player assumes the role of a character living in an imaginary world; with a system of rules that describe how that world works.

There is not much difference here, and the OED definition is much more robust and retargetable. The only problem I have with it is that it uses the word imaginary in front of characters so might not account for historical roleplaying. However it could be argued that Teddy Roosevelt as played by me IS an imaginary character. The term referee and game imply that there are rules used however small and informal the rule set may be.

Take for example the lifeboat game where you have n people that society would choose to be important and n-1 seats in a lifeboat on a sinking ship and each player has to come up with an argument as to why they should be allowed to live and convince at least n-2 others of this argument. There is a moderator. There are rules. The world is the ocean and the ship and the characters are imaginary as is the whole situation.

I think the OED definition is best as it has a specificity and a broadness that covers everything. Furthermore it is a defintion that is more accessible to all.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

1. Keep it short

It's getting longer the more you have to explain it. You can say that your definition by itself is short, but if everytime someone reads it they need you to explain/justify/defend it then the definition becomes longer. A definition is meant to provide meaning and when people need further explanation then the meaning must not have been provided.

2. Keep it simple

See above, because if the people reading it need more information then it is not simple (unless all of those who you are trying to explain this to are "slow", which I doubt is the case).

3. Keep it to the basics.

The very basics would be - a game where you play a role. I may still be required to clarify to the average joe on the street. I think that all of the definitions on here would require further explanation to the average joe on the street, but some require more explanation than others.

This brings up a few other questions:

1. Who is this definition for?

2. How do any of these definitions help me?

3. If establishing a common starting ground to discuss RPG theory is your goal, how do you propose to do that when most of the posters on this thread already have a common ground that doesn't agree with yours?

 

[fusangite]

I just thought I'd nip briefly into this thread to say that some issues being raised here are interesting but that this thread seems to be a sub-optimal way of exploring them. I would be happy to contribute to a thread that is a little more organized and clear on its objectives.

To paraphrase Ron Edwards here, I don't see much point in theorizing something about gaming unless the theorizing takes place for the purpose of identifying and solving problems in actual play or design. The theory has to be for something.

No offense mythusmage but I find that our ways of exploring concepts on ENWorld tend to clash substantially and, now that I'm not facing an immediate writing deadline, find I'm not in a sufficiently bellicose mood to wade in here.

 

[haakon1]

There's no great mystery to it.

The system of a roleplaying game is a means by which players can facilitate and resolve specific conflicts. The conflict is between a protagonist (the PC in question) and an antagonist (either another character in the game or the environment). By facilitating conflict, I mean that the system provides a means of creating conflict (wandering monster tables, teleport mishaps, etc.). By resolving conflict, I mean that the system has a means by which a protagonist can attempt to oppose (and often overcome) the antagonist.

Depending on the genre of the game, the system could include rules for the conflict of an old west gunslinger shootout, or ship-to-ship combat in deep space, or sword fights. While a modern action game might include detailed rules for car chases or fist fights, a political intrigue game might ignore such rules and develop a detailed system for playing out rhetorical slugfests.

That's really all there is to it. Ideally, the system is designed in such a way that it facilitates the type of conflicts that the players of the game enjoy and allows for their resolution in a way that the players of the game enjoy. And while it might be beneficial to include tips on how to roleplay, this is unnecessary beyond the system's method of resolution (i.e., a system like Exalted which pretty much required cool descriptions of actions in order to successfully resolve conflicts would need some guidance in this department). The ideal system is packaged in such a way that nobody playing at the table need worry about the rules: the rules should take care of themselves, leaving everyone free to concern themselves with the game and whatever story they choose to bring to it.

That's a good start on explaining it, and good in that it covers both computer and "analog" RPG's.

But I think you need to add the dimension of the player assuming the role of a fictional character, and the story created being the result of interaction between:
- the players' choices for their characters actions and dialogue
- an author and/or referee's setting, plot, interactive features such as puzzles, and non-player character cast
- the rules of conflict resolution in the game -- when one player says "bang bang you're dead" to another character, the rules decide if that's true or not.