Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Towards a Workable RPG Theory
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wil" data-source="post: 2799731" data-attributes="member: 3502"><p>Well, it was just a beginning <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The <em>goal</em> of the player isn't what the definition of a roleplaying game should be - what roleplaying games <em>are</em> should be the definition. Regardless of intent, if the player is not actively assuming a role, it's not roleplaying. If it's not for entertainment, it's not a game.</p><p></p><p>That does, in order to make sure that we filter out noise, require some more definitions:</p><p></p><p>A <em>role</em> is a predefined framework - a container, if you will - that dictates limitations to the player's actions in the game. In most roleplaying games, this is the character - which has stats, skills, spells, whatever that determine what the character is capable of. Most roleplaying games assume behavioral limitations of some kind - alignment, traits, perks, flaws, virtues - but we may get to those here in a bit. Those limitations normally directly affect the choices the player can make - for example, in a game where wizards are constrained to not be proficient with melee weapons, the <em>role</em> of "wizard" can be assumed to not include being a swordsman. A person trying to play a wizard as a swordsman is not fulfilling the role of wizard, the same way as the father who spends all of his money on gambling and leaves nothing for food for the children is not fulfilling the role of "parent".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm hinging this on the fact the roles are created, by the players, the GM, or the game designers with entertainment value in mind. Social roles, such as "parent" or "employee" have been handed down to us. The question of whether or not these social roles were created is best left unanswered - it's sufficient enough to make the distinction between the roles that we assume on a daily basis and those that we create for play for the purposes of identifying "roleplaying".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Like I pointed out, motive or intention are not completely relevant to what a roleplaying game <em>is</em>. Regardless of why I play or how I play, the question that arises out of the foundation that I laid out is what <em>isn't</em> a roleplaying game, and why? In all games, we assume roles - it's the point of playing a game, really. What makes the difference between Talisman and a traditional rpg like D&D in weighing whether one is a roleplaying game or not?</p><p></p><p>My answer would probably have to be detachment. In a traditional boardgame, there is a large amount of detachment from the playing piece, either intentional or unintentional. You as the player may have a stake in winning the game through the conduit of the playing piece, but you seldom see the piece as having goals and emotions of its own. In a roleplaying game, that is one of the purposes - regardless if the player's intention is the exploration of an internal landscape, telling a good story, or solving puzzles - protraying the the goals and responses of the character are essential to all of them.</p><p></p><p>Just a brief aside on the game aspect: I believe that agreed upon rules are essential for a roleplaying game. They do not have to facilitate resolving conflict, and they do not have to set in stone. They just need to be mutually agreed upon by all of the players. Games have be rules. The key here is that, much like why we assume roles in rpgs, the rules are followed <em>voluntarily</em>. I don't follow the rules of being an employee completely voluntarily - I do so because I need a job, and not doing so will deprive me of income. In a game, I can choose which rules to follow or not follow, as long as there is consensus with the players. In computer games, I can likewise choose to not follow the rules - these are called <em>cheats</em>.</p><p></p><p> So I could revise my premise and say:</p><p></p><p>A roleplaying game is a game with a distinct set of rules that each of the players have agreed to follow beforehand, where the players assume created roles for the purpose of portraying the responses of a fictional persona for entertainment.</p><p></p><p>The biggest problem I can see is this still might be stretched to include V:TeS, and might leave the question unanswered: "If I'm playing Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, and I feel remorse for poor Private Marsh because the stupid AI keeps putting him in front of the oil drums, having I created attachment and am I roleplaying?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wil, post: 2799731, member: 3502"] Well, it was just a beginning ;) The [i]goal[/i] of the player isn't what the definition of a roleplaying game should be - what roleplaying games [i]are[/i] should be the definition. Regardless of intent, if the player is not actively assuming a role, it's not roleplaying. If it's not for entertainment, it's not a game. That does, in order to make sure that we filter out noise, require some more definitions: A [i]role[/i] is a predefined framework - a container, if you will - that dictates limitations to the player's actions in the game. In most roleplaying games, this is the character - which has stats, skills, spells, whatever that determine what the character is capable of. Most roleplaying games assume behavioral limitations of some kind - alignment, traits, perks, flaws, virtues - but we may get to those here in a bit. Those limitations normally directly affect the choices the player can make - for example, in a game where wizards are constrained to not be proficient with melee weapons, the [i]role[/i] of "wizard" can be assumed to not include being a swordsman. A person trying to play a wizard as a swordsman is not fulfilling the role of wizard, the same way as the father who spends all of his money on gambling and leaves nothing for food for the children is not fulfilling the role of "parent". I'm hinging this on the fact the roles are created, by the players, the GM, or the game designers with entertainment value in mind. Social roles, such as "parent" or "employee" have been handed down to us. The question of whether or not these social roles were created is best left unanswered - it's sufficient enough to make the distinction between the roles that we assume on a daily basis and those that we create for play for the purposes of identifying "roleplaying". Like I pointed out, motive or intention are not completely relevant to what a roleplaying game [i]is[/i]. Regardless of why I play or how I play, the question that arises out of the foundation that I laid out is what [i]isn't[/i] a roleplaying game, and why? In all games, we assume roles - it's the point of playing a game, really. What makes the difference between Talisman and a traditional rpg like D&D in weighing whether one is a roleplaying game or not? My answer would probably have to be detachment. In a traditional boardgame, there is a large amount of detachment from the playing piece, either intentional or unintentional. You as the player may have a stake in winning the game through the conduit of the playing piece, but you seldom see the piece as having goals and emotions of its own. In a roleplaying game, that is one of the purposes - regardless if the player's intention is the exploration of an internal landscape, telling a good story, or solving puzzles - protraying the the goals and responses of the character are essential to all of them. Just a brief aside on the game aspect: I believe that agreed upon rules are essential for a roleplaying game. They do not have to facilitate resolving conflict, and they do not have to set in stone. They just need to be mutually agreed upon by all of the players. Games have be rules. The key here is that, much like why we assume roles in rpgs, the rules are followed [i]voluntarily[/i]. I don't follow the rules of being an employee completely voluntarily - I do so because I need a job, and not doing so will deprive me of income. In a game, I can choose which rules to follow or not follow, as long as there is consensus with the players. In computer games, I can likewise choose to not follow the rules - these are called [i]cheats[/i]. So I could revise my premise and say: A roleplaying game is a game with a distinct set of rules that each of the players have agreed to follow beforehand, where the players assume created roles for the purpose of portraying the responses of a fictional persona for entertainment. The biggest problem I can see is this still might be stretched to include V:TeS, and might leave the question unanswered: "If I'm playing Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, and I feel remorse for poor Private Marsh because the stupid AI keeps putting him in front of the oil drums, having I created attachment and am I roleplaying?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Towards a Workable RPG Theory
Top