Before any RPG theory is possible, you must settle some basic questions.

What is an RPG?
Why does it (the above defined) warrant it´s own theory?

Why can´t you use regular vocabulary and methods from the humanities (which is my stance)?

What´s special about RPGs?

Before you don´t answer these questions, all your theory talk is doomed to end up in intellectual cul-de-sacs. Examples are legion.

I must disagree on the first point. I think trying to give a foundational or primary definition of an RPG is not a good use of our time because it is impossible. There is only a cluster of items which we consider possibly significant to our understanding of RPGs, from which we draw examples, make provisional clarifications and propose hypotheses about. RPGs are, after all, only a slightly smaller set of games, and therefore a definition suffers the same problems that Wittgenstein shows we encounter when trying to define "games".

On the other hand, my position on jargon is in agreement with yours: We must use the ordinary vocabulary and discursive methods of the humanities to talk about RPGs in a rigorous way that will lead to understanding, just because RPGs are not something that is alien to its subject matter or ways of talking.

If rigorous discourse is about to happen, you will NEED a definition of some sorts.
At least a fence around "stuff we are actually talking about".

Naw. At least to the whole "founding definition" idea.

What we really need is an ability to provisionally posit certain aspects of RPGs or certain clusters as being of interest or of significance for the purposes of analysis.

We need to be able to say "These RPGs are interesting because..." or "These RPGs seem to work well because..." Assuming an intrinsic unity to all instances of the word "RPG" being used is just not philosophically tenable.

For example, this is the very problem the GNS model has with incoherence. It defines RPG games as expressing one of three playstyles, except when they don't. That extra stuff gets shuffled off into "incoherence" because it violates the trite conceptual unity being established.

The main thing to worry about is "What interesting and useful things can be said about RPGs" not "What are RPGs _really_?" We all know what RPGs are already. Figuring that out is not really a problem we ever face.

Our arguments are passing each other at night.
I was just saying that it has to be clear about what we are talking about.
Every sentence like "These RPGs do X" implivitly needs a fence around "these".
So as it seems we opine alike.

Great minds think alike!










We do as well!

We don't need an exact definition of RPGs to discuss them. What we need is a common ground in our understanding and a willingness to communicate. You could ask why that wouldn't benefit from a good definition. My answer: it probably could, but arguments about definitions rarely become fruitful; on the contrary, they tend to devolve into semantical fuckery. Defining and redefining things, or shifting the ground below a debate, has become a tool in the hands of the intellectually dishonest, and we must do anything in our power to avoid falling for their trickery. Using commonly agreed-upon definitions (or meanings? I can't express myself exactly here) is beneficial because:
- they are organic,
- they are universal or close to universal, and
- they allow us to progress to important things instead of getting stuck on the ground floor.

So all in all, you are right on "using regular vocabulary and methods", but incorrect on "we need a definition". It's a trap! :ackbar:

Agreeing on using the colloquial definition, works just fine.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat is an RPG?

A rocket-propelled grenade.

QuoteWhy does it (the above defined) warrant it´s own theory?

To calculate trajectories? I dunno.

QuoteWhy can´t you use regular vocabulary and methods from the humanities (which is my stance)?

If you've seen what you could do with one, you wouldn't mention it in the same sentence as humanity.

QuoteWhat´s special about RPGs?

They're scary effective.


But on a more serious note, an RPG is a roleplaying game. You play a role. Your character does more or less whatever you say it does. There's some sort of border between this and similar things (say, Clue and such) where you ostensibly play a "character." In videogames, the definition goes just about flat because it applies to things like FPS games. In terms of videogames, RPGs are used mainly to describe games wherein you can custom-build and advance your character, a common convention in pen-n-paper RPGs.

Ideally, a pnp RPG has character creation and/or advancement, conflict resolution for a wide variety of tasks (more than, say, Clue... you've never made a climb check in that game, I take it), and some sort of plot-freedom... whose nature I can't really pin down right now. RPGs are typically non-competitive.

As for your second question? A shitload of amateurs spend their spare hours preparing to run games, tinkering with or houseruling existing games, or writing their own games for free or to be independantly published. Speaking for the lot of us, we need all the help we can get. Not that theory has filled that gap for me personally... as I prefer a more toolkittish approach, but... I suppose it has some appeal for others.

As for the humanities, how many times has the phrase "d4" popped up in there? "Hit location systems?" "Crit charts?" "Fudge dice?" What's that? Never? That's right. How many times have you used "light, line, color, shape, and volume" in discussing RPGs? Never? Ooh... or "Embedded themes" *shudder* I would have thought you at least would understand that the humanities are poorly suited to RPG discussion, and are a big part of how we got into this mess.

As for what's special about RPGs? They're part of a subset of games aimed at older folks than typical (ie board and card) games, including the likes of CCGs and wargames? You can do crazy shit you couldn't in any other style of game?

Or would "I like them and they friggin' RAWCK" suffice?

Quote from: SettembriniBefore you don´t answer these questions, all your theory talk is doomed to end up in intellectual cul-de-sacs. Examples are legion.

So, like ... suppose I say "I had an interesting session last night.  I did X, and Y happened.  I have this theory that if I do X again, Y will happen again ... but only if I have certain circumstances, Z.  I'm just not sure which circumstances are important.  What do you guys think?"

How come I gotta know the answers to all your questions before a discussion of that stuff can be useful to me?  I'm not saying that you're wrong, I just want to understand, in this context, how not knowing those answers is going to lead to trouble.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, like ... suppose I say "I had an interesting session last night.  I did X, and Y happened.  I have this theory that if I do X again, Y will happen again ... but only if I have certain circumstances, Z.  I'm just not sure which circumstances are important.  What do you guys think?"

How come I gotta know the answers to all your questions before a discussion of that stuff can be useful to me?  I'm not saying that you're wrong, I just want to understand, in this context, how not knowing those answers is going to lead to trouble.

Because there's so many people out there saying "I did X and had the most wonderful Y...BUY MY GAME BECAUSE IT GUARANTEES Y! BUY NOW, CRETINS! ONWARDS YOU WALKING PAYPAL ACCOUNTS! I MADE $13,000 THIS YEAR FROM THE FOOLS ON RPG.NET WHO ARE EAGER TO APPEAR HIP. HAHAHAHAH!"

There's too many unknown factors, and too many untrustworthy endorsers and pseudo-salesman "theorists". And even if there weren't-- at the end of the day doing X never guarantees Y because some of the factors involved include actual human people each of whom is unique. It's also important to point out that almost every one of these "theories" involves an explicit advocacy step, and that always seems to tie into one or more products.

This might be an oversimplification of things, but I think it's the root of the evil here.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBecause there's so many people out there saying "I did X and had the most wonderful Y...BUY MY GAME BECAUSE IT GUARANTEES Y! BUY NOW, CRETINS! ONWARDS YOU WALKING PAYPAL ACCOUNTS! I MADE $13,000 THIS YEAR FROM THE FOOLS ON RPG.NET WHO ARE EAGER TO APPEAR HIP. HAHAHAHAH!"

It's a good second income, if you can score it.

Well apparently so.