This is an in-progress theory of RPG design based on Chris Crawford's thoughts on the differences between Puzzles, Competitions, and Games.  For more info check the Wikipedia entry for "Game".

Games and Roleplaying Games

A game has one or more challenges and established rules for players attempting to overcome those challenges.  In Roleplaying Games these challenges usually involve Luck, Strategy, Improvisation and Story Telling.

Players are rewarded for overcoming the challenges of a game.  Some examples of rewards found in RPGs include: satisfaction in overcoming the challenge, recognition of success from the other players, entertaining performances, an entertaining narrative, and game resources that give the player an advantage in future challenges.  The greater the reward(s) the greater the incentive to play the game.  If players are rewarded independently of any challenge, it is not a reward of the game itself and could be available without playing the game, or merely going through the motions of playing the game.

All games, including RPGs require some form of competition.  In a cooperative game all the players compete against the game system itself.  In a competitive game there is competion against other players. Without any form of competition it is a roleplaying activity, rather than a roleplaying game.  

What this tells us about designing games

* The rules of the game need to make it clear to the players what the challenge and reward are, and where the competition of the game is.

* A game based on Improvisation and Storytelling still requires some type of challenge(s), reward(s), and competition.

* If an activity in the game has no effect on the challenges or rewards of the game, the game could be played without it.

* Rewards based on entertaining performances and narratives are only effective if there are players who are talented enough at improvisation and storytelling to entertain the other players in the game.

* Rewards based on strategy are only effective if the game offer enough strategic options, and the players have suitable mastery of the game to allow meaningful strategic decisions.

* Some activities commonly thought of as "RPGs" are not games at all.  For example, some LARPs have no challenges or competition of any sort beyond the optional personal goals of each participant.  They are an activity during which games can take place, but are not games in themselves.

* The GM can be thought of as having one of the following 4 roles:
1) One of the players, with all the players working cooperatively against the game system
2) One of the players, playing competitively against the other players
3) A player in a parallel, inter-dependent game, where they are playing against the game system
4) Not a player at all.  A referee.

* If the GM fudges dice rolls it diminishes any satisfaction or recognition rewards based on Luck or overcoming strategic challenges.

* If the GM changes strategic situations to reduce the challenge to the player(s) it also diminishes rewards based on satisfaction and recognition.

Does it work?

I think this explains the success of D&D, supports some of the design changes made in D&D 3.x, and is also broad enough to cover Forge-Style games with a greater emphasis on storytelling and improvisation.

It will be interesting to hear whether people believe this explains games they think work well, explains games they think work poorly, or offers useful guidance in thinking about how to make new games that work well.

Looks reasonably sound, as far as it goes.

Do you think a challenge is required to be ... well ... challenging?  Should it be something that, through bad luck or bad play or whatever, a player could potentially fail at?

Or is (for instance) "hearing the story the GM wants to tell" a challenge, with set rules for how to "overcome" it and its own reward of an entertaining narrative?

QuoteDo you think a challenge is required to be ... well ... challenging? Should it be something that, through bad luck or bad play or whatever, a player could potentially fail at?

Or is (for instance) "hearing the story the GM wants to tell" a challenge, with set rules for how to "overcome" it and its own reward of an entertaining narrative?

Hearing a story isn't a challenge.  The challenge could involve the choices the players have to make in the RPG based on the story.  The challenge could involve improvising / acting based on the story.  The challenge could involve adding to the story. The challenge could involve a tactical/strategic decision.

If there is no real difference in how or even if the players attempt the challenge, and they get the reward all the same -- the challenge isn't related to the reward, and the reward isn't part of that "game".

Edit: Changed "be" to involve above.

Quote from: StuartIf there is no real difference in how or even if the players attempt the challenge, and they get the reward all the same -- the challenge isn't related to the reward, and the reward isn't part of that "game".

So ... in a railroaded plot, where the GM has set things up such that the PCs are going to win no matter what ... is there any challenge?  Are they, in fact, playing a roleplaying game?  Or are they doing something else?

Quote from: Stuart* If an activity in the game has no effect on the challenges or rewards of the game, the game could be played without it.

A game where none of the rewards are oriented towards any actual form of roleplaying, but which normally contains it...

Is not necessarily an RPG?

QuoteSo ... in a railroaded plot, where the GM has set things up such that the PCs are going to win no matter what ... is there any challenge? Are they, in fact, playing a roleplaying game? Or are they doing something else?

EXACTLY!  This is why players (rightly) dislike railroading in RPGs -- it turns the game into something else.  If you have an RPG where the decisions (strategy) and dice rolls (luck)  of the players don't really matter, and there is no alternative challenge (eg. Improv. or Storytelling), it's only the illusion of a game.

QuoteA game where none of the rewards are oriented towards any actual form of roleplaying, but which normally contains it...

Is not necessarily an RPG?

A game where none of the rewards are based on any "roleplaying" challenges could still be played successfully without any roleplaying.

Quote from: StuartA game where none of the rewards are based on any "roleplaying" challenges could still be played successfully without any roleplaying.

So, a group playing D&D that didn't socially reward roleplaying or use house rules to reward it, could play it as something other than an RPG.

Successfully.

That sounds wrong.

Quote from: StuartEXACTLY!  This is why players (rightly) dislike railroading in RPGs -- it turns the game into something else.  If you have an RPG where the decisions (strategy) and dice rolls (luck)  of the players don't really matter, and there is no alternative challenge (eg. Improv. or Storytelling), it's only the illusion of a game.

Gotcha.  That makes sense.  It's an interesting place to draw a line.  I'll be (a) thinking about it myself and (b) seeing where you go with it.  Thanks for clarifying!

QuoteSo, a group playing D&D that didn't socially reward roleplaying or use house rules to reward it, could play it as something other than an RPG.

Successfully.

That sounds wrong.

I think Mike Mearls mentioned a noon-hour D&D game at WotC that plays more-or-less like a tactical wargame.  So you could play something like D&D miniatures without it being an RPG.

But...

Normally the strategic decisions in D&D are dependent on "roleplaying" -- which I'm using to mean something different than good "acting" or "storytelling".  I think you can roleplay while playing lots of games -- but it actually has an effect on the game in D&D. When not in combat it's the way you interact with the other players and the game system.

I spent some more time thinking about this...

Whether something is a boardgame or a roleplaying game or a party game has more to do with the primary environment of the game rather than the challenges and rewards themselves.

You can definitely have roleplaying without challenges / rewards linked to roleplaying -- like a LARP.  So this isn't suggesting which games are or are not roleplaying games and which should use alternate titles (eg. story games).  However, if something isn't a game at all... it's certainly not a roleplaying game OR a storytelling game.

Game Rewards and Incentive to Play

The greater the reward a game offers, the more incentive people have to play it.  This can be a single, larger reward, or multiple smaller rewards.  

Generally, some rewards are greater than others and can help explain why some types of games are more popular than others. Regardless of the type of challenge (eg. Luck, Strategy, Improvisation and Story Telling):

Winning the game, is a greater reward than
Being recognized for playing well, is a greater reward than
Personal satisfaction in playing well

Games that only offer personal satisfaction offer less reward than games than offer personal satisfaction AND recognition from other players for plaing well AND winning the game.

Risks

Linked to the rewards for a game are it's risks -- what does the player stand to lose by playing the game.  The greater the risk, the less incentive people have to play the game.

Risks relating to RPGs include:  Expense ($), Time to learn the rules, Time to play the game, Uncertainty over the rewards (eg. Narrative quality), Embarrassment (primarily linked to Improvisation and Story Telling), and the risk of "losing" the game.

Games that take a long time to learn, play, have uncertain rewards, are viewed as potentially embarrassing, and offer little potential for the player to "win" offer much less incentive to play compared to games without the same risks, or at least a smaller number of risks.

What does this tell us?

* RPGs should seek to maximize their rewards and minimize their risks.  

* Games without any way of winning are less popular than games with clearly defined winning conditions.

* Games with greater risk to players tend to be less popular, unless they have substantially increased rewards.

Quote from: StuartWinning the game, is a greater reward than
Being recognized for playing well, is a greater reward than
Personal satisfaction in playing well

Games that only offer personal satisfaction offer less reward than games than offer personal satisfaction AND recognition from other players for plaing well AND winning the game.

I would quibble a little bit here.  You're putting a value judgement in here.  Perhaps for you Winning the game is a greater reward.  For others, they might switch the order.

I think it would be more accurate to say "Here are the basic rewards available. Having a game that provides one is not as good as a game that offers two, which is not as a good as game the offers three. Your choice as to which of the three, but the more a game offers, the better."

That seems muddled, and for some reason I'm struggling with a better way to put it.

This is my Theory.

Quote from: StuartWinning the game, is a greater reward than
Being recognized for playing well, is a greater reward than
Personal satisfaction in playing well

Games that only offer personal satisfaction offer less reward than games than offer personal satisfaction AND recognition from other players for plaing well AND winning the game.

I'd agree with the second, but not the first.

Yes, winning the game and being recognized for good play and being personally satisfied ... that's a terrific trifecta.

But sometimes you come away with the plaudits of your peers, even though you lost the game, and that's good.  Sometimes you win the game but nobody recognizes your good play, and that's bad.  And the weight given to those different things varies from person to person.

QuoteI'd agree with the second, but not the first.

Yes, winning the game and being recognized for good play and being personally satisfied ... that's a terrific trifecta.

But sometimes you come away with the plaudits of your peers, even though you lost the game, and that's good. Sometimes you win the game but nobody recognizes your good play, and that's bad. And the weight given to those different things varies from person to person.

Maybe I should write it like this:

Winning + Recognition + Satisfaction
is greater than
Recognition + Satisfaction
is greater than
Satisfaction

I think it's unusual (unless there is cheating or a bad call be the referee) that you would Win without getting recognition + satisfaction.

Likewise if you are getting recognition as playing well, you are very likely to feel some satisfaction, even if you didn't win.  It's definitely less than if you had won though.

Finally, even if you didn't win the game, and even if the other players aren't recognizing your performance, you can still have personal satisfaction in how you played.

If you lost, nobody recognizes your performance, and you are unhappy with how you did -- that's not much reward at all...