Towards a Workable RPG Theory

[mythusmage]

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

In so far as I have not presented any evidence to support my claim, how can I be contradicting it? At present all I'm doing is setting the scene (as it were). Evidence comes later. Let us not get ahead of ourselves.

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.

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

How do you know this? We haven't even gotten to theory yet, we're just establishing what we're talking about.

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

Or maybe you're running ahead on the wrong path?

 

[Wayside]

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

Which is a lot simpler than a description of what gaming is, though still, I think, rather unanswerable without appeal to a lot of things that aren't internal to RPGs in themselves (so outside the scope of your inquiry). Then again, you're asking people what they do, on the one hand, and saying "How people see it, how they deal with it is another subject altogether," on the other, so...

In the case of RPGs a variant of Occam's Razor comes into play. Namely, The simplest description of a phenomenon - in this case, what an RPG is - is usually the best. We're not dealing with a psycho-social phenomenon, we're dealing with what a thing is. How people see it, how they deal with it is another subject altogether. How people handle RPGs is quite outside the scope of this topic.

Second half of this noted, as above. As for the first part: the law of economy applies when all other things are equal. If a vastly more complicated theory is marginally more predictive than its simpler counterpart, the vastly more complicated theory is the better one.

People come up with complex formulations in an attempt to be all inclusive, when looking at what all RPGs have in common could produce a simple description.

At the same time, since whatever terms you come up with for defining RPGs will be based on the simple features they have in common, your theory of RPGs will foreground what is least interesting about them.

 

[Jackelope King]

Wrong context. Where do the characters adventure?

As mentioned in the appendum to my first post, in a fictional world of some sort.

Correction noted.

Thankya kindly!

Too complicated and focuses on a segment of RPGs. System is a part of RPGs, but it is not the whole of RPGs. Ask yourself; what does system do in an RPG?

I get the feeling you already have an answer and want the rest of us to guess at it.

I assert that the two components of an RPG are as follows:

1. A system that facilitates and resolves conflicts between protagonists and antagonists (the "Game" aspect of RPG).
2. Fictional events described by and participated in by players (the "RolePlaying" aspect of RPG).

Without some sort of underlying system (which could be as simple as a gentleman's agreement in the extreme of rules-lite games), then all you have is cooperative storytelling. Without the fictional events (which could be as simple as "See Vecna. See Vecna die. Die Vecna die!"), then all you have is a (usually poor) model of various activities in the world.

With this in mind, I will attempt to pare down my definition a bit:

"A roleplaying game is a series of fictional events described by and participated in by players with an underlying system that facilitates and resolves conflicts between the protagonists and antagonists."

 

[mythusmage]

A general response, because it would take me too long to answer everybody individually.

One thing I've noticed is that a number of people in this thread have things too complicated for themselves. You need to keep it simple. Another is that people are talking about theory, when I've been setting the groundwork for the theory. You're getting ahead of yourselves. You don't know where I'm going yet, please stop assuming you know where I'm headed.

Getting back to basics, the first question to answer regarding RPGs is; what are you doing when playing the game? That's all, that's it. What are you doing when you play the game?

It's a simple answer. It needs no qualifications or dependent clauses.

Does it cover other activities that include roleplaying? No. Does it include activities that could be called roleplaying games? Again, no. In the broadest sense an RPG is an organized, participatory activity where the players assume roles. This includes activities such as 'let's pretend' theater games, psychiatric scenarios, and even murder mystery games. We're focusing on pen and paper RPGs (aka table top RPGS), also know as, RPGs. Which can lead to some confusion. So keep in mind that we are discussing a type of RPG we call RPGs.

So when we use the term, RPG keep in mind we're talking about the type of RPG where participants do one thing unique to this type of RPG.

What is that one thing? That question you can answer by answering this question; what do you do in a roleplaying game? Before anything else, before everything else, what do you do in a roleplaying game? Your answer requires more than one sentence, you need to do a serious rewrite.

Yes, this will count towards your grade.

 

[mythusmage]

Which is a lot simpler than a description of what gaming is, though still, I think, rather unanswerable without appeal to a lot of things that aren't internal to RPGs in themselves (so outside the scope of your inquiry). Then again, you're asking people what they do, on the one hand, and saying "How people see it, how they deal with it is another subject altogether," on the other, so...


Second half of this noted, as above. As for the first part: the law of economy applies when all other things are equal. If a vastly more complicated theory is marginally more predictive than its simpler counterpart, the vastly more complicated theory is the better one.


At the same time, since whatever terms you come up with for defining RPGs will be based on the simple features they have in common, your theory of RPGs will foreground what is least interesting about them.

But the implications and consequences that arise from the theory could be very interesting.

To address your first point. Gaming as gaming does cover a lot of territory. Though I suspect gaming theory could be simplified if people would focus on the elements all games have in common. But since there are many types of gaming folks apparently feel it necessary to compose all inclusive hypotheses taking up paragraphs. Instead of looking for the simplest formulation that covers games as a whole.

As to your second. Arthur Conan Doyle came up with this formulation of Occam's Razor, "Once you've eleminated the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the answer." To put it another way, The solution incorporating all relevant factors is usually the best.

Now, if the vastly more complicated theory has greater predictive power than the simpler one, this indicates one thing. The more complicated theory needs a rewrite. A good theory is, at worst, complex. Meaning it is made up of simple parts and can be broken down into simple parts again. Complicated means it's made up of simple parts, but it can't be broken down into simple parts again.

So when formulating an hypothesis you need to do one thing, keep it as simple as possible.

Another thing to remember is that an hypothesis becomes complicated because the author is trying to account for matters that don't strictly need to be explicitely covered, when they are implicitly covered in the base hypothesis itself.

 

[mythusmage]

I assert that the two components of an RPG are as follows:

1. A system that facilitates and resolves conflicts between protagonists and antagonists (the "Game" aspect of RPG).
2. Fictional events described by and participated in by players (the "RolePlaying" aspect of RPG).

Getting close.

Try this: An RPG consists of two elements. They are:

1. A world. A place where events occur. This world can be a vast as the multiverse or as constrained as the mind of a scizophrenic.

2. A system. Which describes the world and how it works.

Example: The world consists entirely of a room. A room cloaked in darkness except for your corner. You play a character who is profoundly afraid of the dark. Your goal is to leave that corner. But to do that you have to enter the darkness. Your character has one score, Fear. He must reduce his fear score to enter the darkness and leave the corner. The mechanic for determining if he can enter the darkness is Fear score plus a die roll versus a target number. If the modified roll is equal to or better than the target number, you succeed in resisting the obviously suicidal notion that it's save to go out in the dark. To succeed (leave the corner) you have to fail in resisting the obviously suicidal notion that entering the darkness is safe. (Yes, phobics are that irrational. I should know, I'm a phobic.) The fun comes when you have a group playing the game.

(This has possibilities. Thread topic: Are you a rat bastard game designer? )

Back to the topic.

Now, what do you do in a roleplaying game? I'll give you a hint. Jakelope King and I came dang close to telling you.

 

[Wil]

Now, what do you do in a roleplaying game? I'll give you a hint. Jakelope King and I came dang close to telling you.

Simple: you assume a role for the purpose of entertainment. I already answered that

 

[wedgeski]

Getting close.

Try this: An RPG consists of two elements. They are:

1. A world. A place where events occur. This world can be a vast as the multiverse or as constrained as the mind of a scizophrenic.

2. A system. Which describes the world and how it works.

Your definition excludes both players (which would still make it insufficient) and player characters (which IMO would complete it). Interestingly, your example does not.

By your definition Monopoly is a roleplaying game.

Now, what do you do in a roleplaying game? I'll give you a hint. Jakelope King and I came dang close to telling you.

If all you want people to do is guess at your own definitions, you really should just have said so at the start.

 

[wedgeski]

"A roleplaying game is a series of fictional events described by and participated in by players with an underlying system that facilitates and resolves conflicts between the protagonists and antagonists."

Hmm, this made me think a bit, as I'm not entirely sure that conflict is a necessary part of a roleplaying game. It is a necessary part of *fiction*, I would think, but not an RPG, which is kind of an interesting addition to the 'RPG as game or communal story-telling' argument that springs up from time-to-time.

I can certainly remember a few sessions of mine where there was very little or no conflict at all, where the PC's were simply living out a day-in-the-life, so to speak, although admittedly it would be hard to base an entire campaign on such a premise. I do however think that a table full of pure, unadulterated roleplayers (if such a thing exists) would get as much satisfaction from the pure joy of living this other life as most other, lesser mortals, get enjoyment from destroying the bad guy and rescuing the damsel.

 

[Umbran]

Another is that people are talking about theory, when I've been setting the groundwork for the theory. You're getting ahead of yourselves. You don't know where I'm going yet, please stop assuming you know where I'm headed.

Sir, We are getting a head of you. You are behind us. Please recall where you are - you start the thread, but you don't moderate or control it that closely (at least, not if you don't tell us where you were hoping to go,a dn how you wanted to go about it). If you can't keep up, that's not our problem