Towards a Workable RPG Theory

[Jim Hague]

I hesitate to venture into these waters, but...

I think we do need a definition of RPG, so here goes, stealing bits and pieces from Wil and Henry:

Roleplaying Game (RPG): A system of adopting the persona of fictionalized characters in a given milieu according to a mutally-agreed upon set of formalized rules, commonly referred to as mechanics.

Meachanics: The portion of a rules-set dedicated to defining the physical and somethimes metaphysical realities of a given millieu. Mechanics are typically utilized to determine the possible actions of those personae and the consequences of those actions. Some roleplaying games expand their mechanics to include influence (direct or indirect) on the direction of plot, story or some other narrative structure.

As always, YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

Sometimes synthesis is not possible. You start with the very basics and all else that follows expands upon that.

Eh. Synthesis is occasionally not possible in the physical sciences, because some theories dont' match with reality. But here, the "reality" is a much fuzzier subject. Different people have different priorities, so they'll come up with definitions that put emphasis of different aspects of the activity.

As an example - your definition puts emphasis on the world, but largely dodges the "game" aspect. You mention the system, and the system is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for it to be a game. Building cars in a modern factory uses a system, but it isn't a game.

Of course, mythusmage, synthesis will not be possible for you if your mind is closed to the alternatives. But if you are not personally open to trying, the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is that you are not capable of synthesis on this topic. Your own prejudice does not stand as proof that no synthesis is possible for anyone.

 

[mythusmage]

I hesitate to venture into these waters, but...

I think we do need a definition of RPG, so here goes, stealing bits and pieces from Wil and Henry:

Roleplaying Game (RPG): A system of adopting the persona of fictionalized characters in a given milieu according to a mutally-agreed upon set of formalized rules, commonly referred to as mechanics. Mechanics are typically utilized to determine the possible actions of those personae and the consequences of those actions. Some roleplaying games expand their mechanics to include influence (direct or indirect) on the direction of plot, story or some other narrative structure.

As always, YMMV.

Are you saying that the players assume the role of a character with a system of rules that describe what the character can do?

What about setting?

 

[jester47]

I see three problems with that definition:

1. It is not short.

2. It is not simple.

3. It does not stick to the basics.

ok, how bout the OED defintion:

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.

 

[Wil]

Are you saying that the players assume the role of a character with a system of rules that describe what the character can do?

What about setting?

There doesn't have to be a defined setting - or, more accurately, the setting can be as minimal or as detailed as you wish. Or is it not possible to set a roleplaying in an empty room? The key there is that the setting is either partially (in the case of LARPS) or fully imagined - there are no other criteria for what the setting should be.

 

[Jim Hague]

Are you saying that the players assume the role of a character with a system of rules that describe what the character can do?

What about setting?

Setting is addressed by the millieu. The distinction from 'Let's Pretend' is deliberate - even if it's a rules-light system, there is a system. The nature of that system isn't addressed except in terms of being mutually agreed-upon by the participants.

 

[Wil]

Setting is addressed by the millieu. The distinction from 'Let's Pretend' is deliberate - even if it's a rules-light system, there is a system. The nature of that system isn't addressed except in terms of being mutually agreed-upon by the participants.

Which elevates games of "Let's Pretend" where there are agreed-upon rules to the status of a "roleplaying game". Which is completely fine by me, I have a broad definition of what I consider to be rpgs as it is.

 

[mythusmage]

Eh. Synthesis is occasionally not possible in the physical sciences, because some theories dont' match with reality. But here, the "reality" is a much fuzzier subject. Different people have different priorities, so they'll come up with definitions that put emphasis of different aspects of the activity.

As an example - your definition puts emphasis on the world, but largely dodges the "game" aspect. You mention the system, and the system is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for it to be a game. Building cars in a modern factory uses a system, but it isn't a game.

Of course, mythusmage, synthesis will not be possible for you if your mind is closed to the alternatives. But if you are not personally open to trying, the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is that you are not capable of synthesis on this topic. Your own prejudice does not stand as proof that no synthesis is possible for anyone.

I'm going to keep defending my definition. Because, from the alternatives presented in this thread, it's the simplest definition out there that takes into account what's important in an RPG.

Yes, others emphasize certain aspects, but those aspects arise from the basic definition.

What do you do? You play a character.

Where do you play that character? In an imaginary world.

How does that world work? How do you determine what a character can do? You have a system of rules that describe how the world works and as part of that description regulate what a character can do.

To elucidate: Your character lives in an imaginary world. What he can do and what the world is like is established by a body of rules usually referred to as a system. The system consisting of game mechanics and descriptions of how the mechanics are used.

Some emphasize story creation (my preferred term), but without character, world, or system story creation would not be possible at all. The fact it is possible is a consequence of character, world, and system and therefor cannot be considered basic to RPGs.

Let me put it this way, 'story' is an outcome of play. Without character, world, and system play (as we know it) would not be possible at all.

Take a look at those RPGs you currently own. Note what each includes; character, world, and system. You may find some games that call themselves RPGs that exclude one or more of those elements, but by the definition I've proposed (the 2nd of two) they do not count as RPGs. They may well qualify under the first definition, but not the second. And it is the second we're working with right now.

So you've got RPGs as a whole and RPGs of the type discussed on these boards. Type one being the set of RPGs, type two being a sub-set of type one.

Tell you what. Shut down your computer and go do the dishes. Or mow the lawn, something like that. Sometimes when you find a problem giving you trouble taking your mind off it and doing something that occupies your attention actually helps you to solve that problem. One of the strange ways our brain works.

 

[Jackelope King]

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)

 

[Jim Hague]

Which elevates games of "Let's Pretend" where there are agreed-upon rules to the status of a "roleplaying game". Which is completely fine by me, I have a broad definition of what I consider to be rpgs as it is.

Went back and modified my definition post a bit. Sorry that Mythus doesn't like the formalized language, but as I said YMMV.

And to answer more directly - sure. It's meant to be a very broad definition. But please note the 'formal' part of the mechanics, meant to distinguish 'em from the ad hoc stuff me and my friends came up with on the playground.