Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4997990" data-attributes="member: 22779">Each player sure.&nbsp; But, each character does not have a unique identity.&nbsp; There is also no narrative flow from one event to the next.&nbsp; There is no reason why I visit Baltic Avenue after visiting Park Place.&nbsp; There is no reason why, after x number of squares I get 200 dollars.&nbsp; There is no reason why rolling 3 doubles in a row lands me in jail.While a game may not have to have multiple classes to be an RPG, it does need to have multiple roles.&nbsp; If there is no distinction between me playing the shoe and me playing the battleship, there are no roles.&nbsp; Pretending I'm a slum lord, for example, does not change the game in the slightest.Now I could add role playing rules to Monopoly.&nbsp; But, as I state in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/268018-3-criteria-almost-all-rpgs-fall-into.html#post4997987" target="_blank">this thread</a> Monopoly as written doesn't fit my criteria for an RPG.As far as goal vs win conditions, I totally disagree.&nbsp; There are many, many reasons to play a game that have nothing to do with win conditions.&nbsp; For example, in teaching, we use role play all the time as a teaching tool.&nbsp; I'd certainly call it a game - we're playing shopkeeper, or, in the case of my very young students, house.&nbsp; My adult students engage in free form role play all the time.&nbsp; That's where I'm having a problem RC.&nbsp; You are insisting that the only goal that makes a game really a game is a win condition.&nbsp; You claimed that &quot;exploration of a philosophical point&quot; is not a&nbsp; goal that allows what we're doing to be called a game.&nbsp; It's &quot;shooting the breeze&quot;.&nbsp; To me, using the framework of the game to explore a concept, or to reinforce teaching points, or various other activities, does count as playing a game where the goal is divorced from any win/lose conditions in the game itself.Take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay" target="_blank">Emergent Gameplay</a>&nbsp; The player creates goals that have nothing to do with the framework of the game.&nbsp; Machinima is probably the best example I can come up with here.&nbsp; I'm playing Halo, for example, to make a movie.&nbsp; I am playing a game.&nbsp; But, my goals have nothing to do with the goals of the game I'm playing and beyond &quot;Let's make an interesting movie&quot; aren't really a win condition style goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4997990, member: 22779"] Each player sure. But, each character does not have a unique identity. There is also no narrative flow from one event to the next. There is no reason why I visit Baltic Avenue after visiting Park Place. There is no reason why, after x number of squares I get 200 dollars. There is no reason why rolling 3 doubles in a row lands me in jail. While a game may not have to have multiple classes to be an RPG, it does need to have multiple roles. If there is no distinction between me playing the shoe and me playing the battleship, there are no roles. Pretending I'm a slum lord, for example, does not change the game in the slightest. Now I could add role playing rules to Monopoly. But, as I state in [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/268018-3-criteria-almost-all-rpgs-fall-into.html#post4997987]this thread[/url] Monopoly as written doesn't fit my criteria for an RPG. As far as goal vs win conditions, I totally disagree. There are many, many reasons to play a game that have nothing to do with win conditions. For example, in teaching, we use role play all the time as a teaching tool. I'd certainly call it a game - we're playing shopkeeper, or, in the case of my very young students, house. My adult students engage in free form role play all the time. That's where I'm having a problem RC. You are insisting that the only goal that makes a game really a game is a win condition. You claimed that "exploration of a philosophical point" is not a goal that allows what we're doing to be called a game. It's "shooting the breeze". To me, using the framework of the game to explore a concept, or to reinforce teaching points, or various other activities, does count as playing a game where the goal is divorced from any win/lose conditions in the game itself. Take [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay]Emergent Gameplay[/url] The player creates goals that have nothing to do with the framework of the game. Machinima is probably the best example I can come up with here. I'm playing Halo, for example, to make a movie. I am playing a game. But, my goals have nothing to do with the goals of the game I'm playing and beyond "Let's make an interesting movie" aren't really a win condition style goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification