Towards a Workable RPG Theory

[mythusmage]

Lukelightning, Steveroo ...

You've come close to what I'm getting at. But ...

At this moment I'm looking for an answer to the question; what do you do in an RPG?

Steveroo, you came close, though your formulation lacks a certain elegance.

 

[Jackelope King]

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.

 

[JimAde]

Scientific method, via posts on a message board? Dude, you're sample is going to be self-selected up the wazoo.

Kind of an odd place to self-select, but to each his own..

To answer the question, here's my shot:

A Role-Playing Game is an activity in which two or more people improvisationally describe the events in a shared story, using a set of rules and backstory as a structure to limit possible events.

Note that this definition would exclude CRPGs, but can include systems without a GM.

 

[mythusmage]

Jackalope King, JimAde, where's the context? Where does this take place?

And JK, the topic is RPGs, not RPG systems.

 

[Jackelope King]

Jackalope King, JimAde, where's the context? Where does this take place?

Wherever you want it to take place. Adding context would only serve to exclude roleplaying games on the fringes of convention, and that is not necessary. Adding the context of "with people around a table" would exclude groups who play on the floor or via the internet. Adding the context of "not video games" would exclude Neverwinter Nights servers, CRPGs, or MMORPGs, all of which are valid takes on the core concept of conflict facilitation and resolution.

And it's Jackelope. Yes, I spell it with an "e"

And JK, the topic is RPGs, not RPG systems.

Then as an appendum to my previous post, a roleplaying game is an activity which utilizes a roleplaying game system (as defined above) to facilitate and resolve conflicts between a protagonist/several protagonists and an antagonist/several antagonists. Protagonists and antagonists in this definition are fictional characters engaging in fictional conflicts in a fictional setting of some sort under the control of players (so as to exclude games like freeze tag, which are nothing more than a simple method of conflict facilitation and resolution).

 

[jmucchiello]

That's the goal, to devise a workable RPG theory that describes and explains the phenomenon known as roleplaying games. To start it off we need to answer one simple question:

What do you do?

Why is this a starting point? If I want to know what the theory of anything, I don't think I would start there.

Try this:

What is the Dinner Theory? Devise a workable Dinner theory that describes and explains the phenomenon known as dinner. To start it off we need to answer one simple question: What do you do?

Does that make any sense whatsoever? If I want to know why people dine, what they do while they dine is not important. What is important is how they define dinner, what qualifies as dinner (as opposed to supper), etc.

The theories so far proposed for RPGs are similar to the theories I would expect for dinner (in terms of style of content). I fail to see why you discard them in favor of "what do you do?" For my questions of course, one eats. That doesn't tell me much of anything about dinner though really.

The first question to answer is "what is dinner?" And that is the type of answer you've received.

(I know this thread is going to give me a headache....)

 

[Henry]

How about, "A Role-Playing Game" is a game in which each player assumes one or more roles of characters in a shared imaginary milieu.

No need to go into Game masters (since not all RPG's have them, nor to the same level of authority), no need to explain about playing a role (since not all people "play" that role, but assumption is a better catch-all I think), no need to go into lack of boards, etc. All these elements vary from game to game, but the overriding constant is that they're playing a character role in a shared setting. (Milieu as "environment or setting" is a broader descriptor.)

 

[Umbran]

Scientists do it all the time. Besides, self-selecting evidence to support an hypothesis is more the academic method than the scientific.

Scientists eat hamburgers all the time too, doesn't mean it's part of or consistent with the scientific method.

If self-selecting evidence is part of ther academic method, and you're trying for scientific, then how is this consistent witho your original claim that you'll be going scientific here?

I must disagree. What I'm after here is, essentially, a description of what an RPG is. A simple, straightforward description.

Eh. That's not a "theory" then. In science, a theory is a somewhat tested speculation that is still open to further testing. You cannot test "is this an RPG?" as there's no objective definition or measure of RPGs.

I'm trying to keep it simple here. I hope to show that by providing a simple description of RPGs it becomes easier for players and authors to use and devise RPGs to appeal to a wider audience and allow for a wider range of experiences and play. But such an RPG theory needs to be basic enough to allow inclusion of different types of RPG. But not so broad it becomes useless as a description.

A fine goal, but it isn't "science", because it isn't testable

Now, if you want to say you're trying to create a defintion of classification system, I'm all ears.

 

[JimAde]

Jackalope King, JimAde, where's the context? Where does this take place?

And JK, the topic is RPGs, not RPG systems.

What the Jackelope said. If you want a general definition of RPG, you can't limit it artificially, since PbP and regular tabletop can be quite different and don't even begin to push the boundaries of what most people call RPGs.

 

[Umbran]

How about, "A Role-Playing Game" is a game in which each player assumes one or more roles of characters in a shared imaginary milieu.

I think this is a good, general definition

No need to go into Game masters (since not all RPG's have them, nor to the same level of authority), no need to explain about playing a role (since not all people "play" that role, but assumption is a better catch-all I think), no need to go into lack of boards, etc. All these elements vary from game to game, but the overriding constant is that they're playing a character role in a shared setting. (Milieu as "environment or setting" is a broader descriptor.)

You have an excellent point here - almost all of the other trappings of rpgs simply aren't central or necessary. There may be some common elements in particular implementations currently in fashion, but each time you include one of them, you start excluding games that are as close to other RPGs as makes no odds.

I'd say the real definition of the thing is too general to be useful as basis for further theorizing.