Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D1Tremere" data-source="post: 8187121" data-attributes="member: 61148">In general I really like this post, but I do disagree with a few points very strongly (much as the author pre-supposes).1: "Role-playing games, as defined by the last word, are games and therefore require opposition." As a psychologist who uses gameification in research and education I think we need to examine the definition of game here. In particular, "A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for entertainment or fun, and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements...Games are sometimes played purely for enjoyment, sometimes for achievement or reward as well. They can be played alone, in teams, or online" (Wikipedia, January 12th 2021).The key takeaway from this excerpt of definition and from my own experience is that a game need not include opposition or progressive improvement. A roleplaying game can be entirely cooperative, including the DM. A cooperative narrative RPG where the DM and player simply build a scene is still a game. Even when a game includes opposition I would argue that it does not have to be (and really shouldn't be in my opinion) "GM opposed adventure." The GM can exist purely as an impartial arbitrator who simply informs players of scenario and outcomes, or as a partial agent (either for or against the players). The latter (against or opposed to the players) is my least favored scenario, as it often results in less cooperation and can be responsible for creating issues instead of preventing them. When the GM is an agent for the players he/she can focus on tailoring the game to everyone's tastes and needs, resulting in a much more enjoyable game in many circumstances. That said, if a group prefers an adversarial GM relationship that is perfectly valid as well. I simply argue that this is neither the only, nor the default/best option.2: Progressive improvement is not necessary for it to be an RPG or a game. Evolution (as change over time) is certainly a key component to a game, but it doesn't need to be progressive or an improvement. Change over time can consist of an evolving or devolving series of circumstances. These changes may not represent improvement, or if they do it may not be a lasting improvement. Much of what is considered improvement remains a matter of perspective as well. A player may feel that their character has improved despite becoming less capable at one or more pillars of the game. For example; a player may feel that their character cutting off their hand in order to save a party member or NPC is an improvement, despite the fact that they are now less capable at challenges and have not mechanically progressed.I would then propose the following change:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Avatars,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">evolution (subjective and/or objective),</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">co-operation, and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GMed arbitration.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification